7-Eleven, Inc. v. Planning Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Planning Board

21 A.D.3d 383, 798 N.Y.S.2d 912

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 1, 2005·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Islip dated August 25, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for a special use permit, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated April 26, 2004, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed that the permit be issued.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly annulled the determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Islip which denied the petitioners’ application for a special use permit to operate a 24-hour convenience store and a corresponding reduction in the parking space requirement, since it was not supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Holbrook v Assoc. Dev. Co. v McGowan, 261 AD2d 620 [1999]; Matter of Chernick v McGowan, 238 AD2d 586, 587 [1997]. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Islip dated August 25, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for a special use permit, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated April 26, 2004, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed that the permit be issued.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly annulled the determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Islip which denied the petitioners’ application for a special use permit to operate a 24-hour convenience store and a corresponding reduction in the parking space requirement, since it was not supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Holbrook v Assoc. Dev. Co. v McGowan, 261 AD2d 620 [1999]; Matter of Chernick v McGowan, 238 AD2d 586, 587 [1997]. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Planning Board, 21 A.D.3d 383, 798 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

21 A.D.3d 383 (7-Eleven, Inc. v. Planning Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related