Abrishami v. Board of Trustees of Incorporated Village of East Hills

16 A.D.3d 410, 790 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2292
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 7, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 410 (Abrishami v. Board of Trustees of Incorporated Village of East Hills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abrishami v. Board of Trustees of Incorporated Village of East Hills, 16 A.D.3d 410, 790 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

— In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of East Hills, dated March 24, 2003, enacting Local Law No. 1 (2003) of the Incorporated Village of East Hills imposing a moratorium on residential subdivision reviews and approvals and an action for a judgment declaring that Local Law No.l (2003) of the Incorporated Village of East Hills is void and unenforceable, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated September 30, 2003, which, among other things, dismissed the proceeding and declared that Local Law No. 1 (2003) of the Incorporated Village of East Hills was valid and enforceable.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners argue that since Local Law No. 1 (2003) of the Incorporated Village of East Hills was not referred to the [411]*411Nassau County Planning Commission as required by General Municipal Law § 239-m, it was invalid.

However, the respondents submitted evidence that it complied with this condition precedent (see General Municipal Law § 239-m [1] [d]). Therefore, its determination should not be annulled on that basis (see Matter of Spiliotes v Trotta, 288 AD2d 315 [2001]). Moreover, the notice of the public hearing was not defective (see Village Law § 7-706; Matter of Cellular Tel. Co. v Meyer, 200 AD2d 743 [1994]; Fairris v Town of Washington Planning Bd., 167 AD2d 368, 370 [1990]). Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Village of Pomona v. Town of Ramapo
30 Misc. 3d 263 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Roanoke Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Town of Brookhaven
24 A.D.3d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 410, 790 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrishami-v-board-of-trustees-of-incorporated-village-of-east-hills-nyappdiv-2005.