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
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN WHEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TOO CLOSE IN THE ON-COMING LANE (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER THE MATTER WAS ARBITRABLE INSTEAD OF SENDING IT TO AN ARBITRATION PANEL, THE APPELLANTS ARGUED THEY WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
Violation of Confrontation Clause Was Harmless Error
NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN FATHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL HARM TO THE CHILD, NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
Complaint Did Not Sufficiently Allege Demand for Board’s Action Would Be Futile, Criteria Described
PLAINTIFF, AN EXTERMINATOR, WAS IN THE ATTIC OF DEFENDANT’S HOUSE; THE ATTIC HAD NO FLOOR AND THE PLAINTIFF WALKED ON THE BEAMS OR JOISTS; THE PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE STEPPED ON A SMALLER PIECE OF WOOD LYING ACROSS THE BEAMS, IT GAVE WAY AND HIS LEG WENT THROUGH THE CEILING; THE 2ND DEPARTMENT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, DETERMINED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE SMALLER BOARD WAS A LATENT DEFECT OR THAT DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE OF ANY DEFECT, SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION FELL FROM AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TO REACH A POWER CABLE; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR PLAINTIFF TO ELEVATE HIMSELF TO DO HIS JOB; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY (SECOND DEPT).
WITNESS DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT A LINEUP, SAYING ONLY SHE WAS ‘LEANING TOWARD’ CHOOSING THE DEFENDANT, THAT TESTIMONY WAS INADMISSIBLE UNDER CPL 60.25; PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS IN SUMMATION HARSHLY CRITICIZED (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...