You are here: / / THERE ARE TWO STATUTORY PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF A SEWER...
,

THERE ARE TWO STATUTORY PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF A SEWER DISTRICT; HERE THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION WAS INITIATED UNDER ONE STATUTORY PROCEDURE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A REFERENDUM, BUT THE TOWN APPLIED THE OTHER STATUTORY PROCEDURE, WHICH DOES REQUIRE A REFERENDUM; THAT WAS ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town failed to follow the correct statutory procedure for approval of an extension of a sewer district to include petitioner’s commercial development  There are two statutory procedures. The Town Law Article 12 procedure applies when a petition is filed by an owner of taxable property (like the petitioner in this case). The Article 12 procedure has no “referendum” requirement. The Town Law Article 12-A procedure is initiated by the town and requires a referendum. Here the town required a referendum and thereby applied the wrong statutory procedure:

… [W]ithout formally ruling on the article 12 petition, the Town Board … essentially approved the extension project under the framework of article 12-A by providing for a permissive referendum. Recognizing that these articles do not contain any mechanism for such a conversion, we find that the Town Board erred and, as a result, its resolutions must be invalidated. Matter of Glen Wild Land Co., LLC v Town of Thompson, 2025 NY Slip Op 02628, Third Dept 5-1-25

Practice Point: Where the Town Law provides two distinct statutory procedures for approval of an extension of a sewer district, the town must follow the procedure in the applicable statute. Here the applicable statute did not require a referendum but the inapplicable statute did. The town erred when it required a referendum.

 

You might also like
Wall Surrounding the Edge of a Roof Is Not a Safety Device
SUPREME COURT WENT BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S DETERMINATION UNION CARBIDE’S FOIL REQUESTS WERE MOOT BECAUSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN PROVIDED; ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THE FOIL REQUEST WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE THERE WERE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WERE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT).
Pulling Into Traffic Without Activating Lights and Siren Did Not Constitute Reckless Disregard for the Safety of Others
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RISKS OF CONTINUING TO BE REPRESENTED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE PLEA PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE JUDGE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INFORMED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FORMER AND CURRENT CLIENTS WOULD BE WITNESSES AT DEFENDANT’S TRIAL, DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant, Who Worked from Her Home Pursuant to a Consulting Agreement, Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor
DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT SUPPORTING A “FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT” DEFENSE TO THE ACTION BASED UPON AN EXECUTED PROMISSORY NOTE (THIRD DEPT).
“Unconscionable Contract” Elements Explained
Waiver of Appeal Invalid; Counsel Did Not Take Position Adverse to Client Re: Pro Se Motion

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH FATHER IS INCARCERATED FOR ASSAULTING MOTHER WHEN SHE WAS SEVEN MONTHS... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER AND ATTEMPTED ASSAULT PURSUANT...