Adkins v. Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adkins v. Board of Appeals

199 A.D.2d 261, 604 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 261 (Adkins v. Board of Appeals) 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

Adkins v. Board of Appeals, 199 A.D.2d 261, 604 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review so much of the determinations of the Village of Babylon, dated November 14, 1988, and August 15, 1990, respectively, as, upon renewing the petitioners’ special permit to operate an adult home, did so on condition, inter alia, that all residents of the adult home be removed from the third floor, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated July 8, 1991, which annulled the conditions imposed.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the regulation of adult-care facilities has been preempted by the State (see, Social Services Law § 460; 18 NYCRR ch II, subch D; People v Town of Clarkstown, 160 AD2d 17). Any local restriction prohibiting conduct which the State finds acceptable is therefore invalid (see, Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v County of Suffolk, 71 NY2d 91, 97; New York State Club Assn. v City of New York, 69 NY2d 211, 217, affd 487 US 1). Since the New York State Department of Social Services determined that the premises in question was being operated in compliance with applicable regulations, the appellants were without power to conclude otherwise, and the restrictions imposed by the appellants on the use of the premises were properly annulled. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien and Ritter, 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 so much of the determinations of the Village of Babylon, dated November 14, 1988, and August 15, 1990, respectively, as, upon renewing the petitioners’ special permit to operate an adult home, did so on condition, inter alia, that all residents of the adult home be removed from the third floor, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated July 8, 1991, which annulled the conditions imposed.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the regulation of adult-care facilities has been preempted by the State (see, Social Services Law § 460; 18 NYCRR ch II, subch D; People v Town of Clarkstown, 160 AD2d 17). Any local restriction prohibiting conduct which the State finds acceptable is therefore invalid (see, Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v County of Suffolk, 71 NY2d 91, 97; New York State Club Assn. v City of New York, 69 NY2d 211, 217, affd 487 US 1). Since the New York State Department of Social Services determined that the premises in question was being operated in compliance with applicable regulations, the appellants were without power to conclude otherwise, and the restrictions imposed by the appellants on the use of the premises were properly annulled. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 261, 604 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adkins-v-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack