You are here: / / RESIDENTS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CHALLENGED FENCE DO...
, ,

RESIDENTS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CHALLENGED FENCE DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT A ZONING VIOLATION; BECAUSE THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION APPROVED CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE, THEY ARE NECESSARY PARTIES IN THIS ZONING-VIOLATION PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) plaintiff property owners who did not live in close proximity to the proposed fence around school property did not have standing to assert a zoning violation; and (2) the NYS Department of Education (SED) and the Commissioner of Education, which authorized construction of the fence, are necessary parties. The plaintiffs alleged the local school district violated local zoning laws by not seeking approval from the village before starting construction of the fence:

A party seeking standing to challenge an administrative action must establish that the injury it sustained was “different in kind and degree from the community generally” … . A party residing “in the immediate vicinity” of the subject property suffers harm greater than the community at large when the subject property violates a zoning law because “loss of value of individual property may be presumed from depreciation of the character of the immediate neighborhood” … . …

… “[N]ecessary parties are persons who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action and must be made plaintiffs or defendants” ( … CPLR 1001[a]). SED and the Commissioner are necessary parties because the Supreme Court’s determination would necessarily determine their rights to set school safety standards and approve plans for school construction … . Matter of Cuomo v East Williston Union Free Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 02702, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Only residents who live in close proximity to property alleged to violate zoning laws have standing to assert a zoning violation.

Practice Point: When necessary parties have not been included in a lawsuit, the court should try to make them parties.

 

You might also like
THE ALLEGED MISPRESENTATION IN PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR CAR INSURANCE, I.E., THAT SHE LIVED IN NEW ROCHELLE AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE WHEN IN FACT SHE LIVED IN BROOKLYN AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE, WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN “MATERIAL” AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE INSURER HAD DENIED COVERAGE BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION; THE INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE WRONGFUL DEATH COMPLAINT ALLEGED PORT AUTHORITY WAS NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO INSTALL SUICIDE-PREVENTION BARRIERS ON THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED MOTHER’S POST-HEARING SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS, FATHER DEPRIVED OF ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE AND OBJECT TO EXHIBITS.
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER WALKING ON THE REBAR GRID WAS AN INHERENT RISK OF THE JOB AND WHETHER THE GRID WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED A DIRECTED VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO A LEVEL ONE BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN AT LIBERTY FOR 17 YEARS WITHOUT REOFFENDING (SECOND DEPT).
Probation Department’s Unauthorized Taking of DNA Evidence Required Suppression/Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Applied to Deny Suppression of Identification Evidence and Defendant’s Statement
THE JUDGE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR CONDUCTING THE TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
SURVIVING PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT TIMELY MOVE TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEDENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 1021, ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MOTHER’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND EVASIVE TESTIMONY DID NOT AMOUNT... THE CHILD’S FOSTER PARENTS WERE PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE...