You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED...
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the action seeking a declaration whether a proposed development was within the jurisdiction of the planning board was premature. Although the board found it had jurisdiction, it also indicated the landowner could obtain a hardship exemption which would allow development:

​

Here, the Planning Commission’s initial finding that the proposed subdivision constituted “development” within the meaning of the Act (see Environmental Conservation Law § 57-0107[13]; see also Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan § 4.3.5) did not constitute a final determination prohibiting the petitioners from subdividing the property in accordance with their proposal. As the Planning Commission’s determination indicated, the petitioners may still obtain a hardship exemption, which would render the proposed residential use of the property authorized … . Since the petitioners failed to adequately allege that they suffered an actual concrete injury, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as premature … . Matter of Equine Facility, LLC v Pavacic, 2017 NY Slip Op 08371, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

ZONING (ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RIPENESS, ZONING, ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ZONING,  (ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE PETITION BROUGHT BY THE EXECUTOR PURSUANT TO SCPA 2103 SOUGHT DISCOVERY AND THE TURNOVER OF ANNUITY FUNDS WHICH HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO APPELLANT; THE SCPA 21O3 ACTION IS LIKE AN ACTION FOR CONVERSION OR REPLEVIN AND HAS A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; HERE THE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE ANSWERS TO ASSERT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE MONTH ENCOMPASSED BY THIRTY INDICTMENT COUNTS RENDERED THOSE COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
OFFICER DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VAN AFTER HE LEARNED THAT DEFENDANT, WHO WAS SITTING IN THE PASSENGER SEAT, WAS SMOKING A CIGAR, NOT MARIJUANA, SUPREME COURT’S SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH WAS ERROR, THERE WAS UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE THE VAN WAS DEFENDANT’S WORK VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION IN THIS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A TENURED TEACHER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFFS’ CAR STOPPED SUDDENLY DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BECAUSE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS MADE; THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONDITIONAL ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AN UNAUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ON APPEAL TO WHICH THE PARTIES STIPULATED WAS NOT CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMSSED AS TIME-BARRED; RPAPL 1304 IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, NOT A STATUTORY PROHIBITION WHICH WOULD TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (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

DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH... NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE...