You are here: / / THE QUARRY OWNER HAD, AS A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, A VESTED RIGHT...
,

THE QUARRY OWNER HAD, AS A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, A VESTED RIGHT TO MINE THAT PORTION OF ITS LAND SUBJECT TO A PENDING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ZONING BOARD AND SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner had a vested right to mine that portion of its land subject to a pending application for a mining permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Petitioner operated a quarry, which was an allowed pre-existing use of the land, and had a DEC permit to mine 37.5 acres (the entire parcel is 241 acres) The petitioner was seeking a permit from the DEC to expand the number of acres to be mined from 37.5 acres to 94 acres. While the application for the permit was pending, the town enacted a new zoning law that allowed mining on only those lands subject to an existing DEC permit. Petitioner sought a declaration that it had a vested right to mine its entire parcel as a prior nonconforming use and Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding:

” [N]onconforming uses or structures, in existence when a zoning ordinance is enacted, are, as a general rule, constitutionally protected and will be permitted to continue, notwithstanding the contrary provisions of the ordinance'” … . ” By its very nature, quarrying involves a unique use of land. . . . [A]s a matter of practicality as well as economic necessity, a quarry operator will not excavate his entire parcel of land at once, but will leave areas in reserve, virtually untouched until they are actually needed'” … . “[W]here . . . the owner engages in substantial quarrying activities on a distinct parcel of land over a long period of time and these activities clearly manifest an intent to appropriate the entire parcel to the particular business of quarrying, the extent of [the] protection afforded by the nonconforming use will extend to the boundaries of the parcel even though extensive excavation may have been limited to only a portion of the property” … . …

… [T]he petitioner demonstrated that it has a vested right to mine those 94 acres as a prior nonconforming use … . In opposition, the respondents/defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Further, for the same reasons, the petitioner demonstrated that so much of the ZBA’s determination as found that the petitioner does not have a vested right to mine those 94 acres was affected by an error of law, arbitrary, and capricious … . …

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the petitioner’s motion to the extent of declaring that the petitioner has a vested right to mine 94 acres of its property as a prior nonconforming use … . Matter of Red Wing Props., Inc. v Town of Rhinebeck, 2020 NY Slip Op 03119, Second Dept 6-3-20

 

You might also like
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN BRINGING THE UNTIMELY CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA FOR A 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, AFTER FAILING TO ARGUE THAT DEFENDANTS WAIVED THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE BEFORE SUPREME COURT, COULD NOT RAISE DEFENDANTS’ WAIVER OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO COMMENCE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
SNOW AND ICE ON FRONT STEPS WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, NO DUTY TO WARN (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE A LADDER SHIFTS OR SLIDES FOR NO APPARENT REASON A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS ESTABLISHED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN A SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION; ONLY PROOF THE AREA WAS INSPECTED OR CLEANED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL WILL SUFFICE (SECOND DEPT).
ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT CHILD NEGLECT PROCEEDING ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY THE SAME COURT.

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

RETURN OF THE CHILDREN TO MOTHER AFTER A TEMPORARY REMOVAL WAS NOT SUPPORTED... NOTICE OF DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS...