Amerada Hess Corp. v. Lefkowitz

82 A.D.2d 882, 440 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14584
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 22, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 882 (Amerada Hess Corp. v. Lefkowitz) 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
Amerada Hess Corp. v. Lefkowitz, 82 A.D.2d 882, 440 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Brookhaven denying petitioner’s application to have certain of its leased property rezoned under a “floating zone” provision, the appeal (by permission) is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated October 30,1980, which denied the appellants’ motion to dismiss the petition. Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision converting the proceeding into an action for a declaratory judgment with the petition deemed the complaint. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Appellants’ time to answer is [883]*883extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon with notice of entry. Petitioner seeks review of a denial of its application to rezone certain of its leased property under a “floating zone” provision. Such review, however, cannot be had in an article 78 proceeding, for it is of legislative action (see Jaffe v Burns, 64 AD2d 692; Matter of Southern Dutchess Country Club v TownBd. of Town of Fishkill, 25 AD2d 866, affd 18 NY2d 870; 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law & Practice [2d ed], §22.15, p 203). The appropriate vehicle for such review is an action for a declaratory judgment (Jaffe v Burns, supra; Ajamian v Town Bd. of Oyster Bay, 38 AD2d 551). Notwithstanding the inappropriateness of an article 78 proceeding, the petition need not be dismissed. Rather, the proceeding is deemed converted to an action for a declaratory judgment (see CPLR103, subd [c]). We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Donaldson v. State
156 A.D.2d 290 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Donovan v. Town Board
137 A.D.2d 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Nogas v. Griffin
136 A.D.2d 939 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Napolitano v. Town Board of Oyster Bay
128 A.D.2d 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Kasper v. Town of Brookhaven
122 A.D.2d 200 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Belviso v. Noto
119 A.D.2d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Norman v. Town Board of Town of Orangetown
118 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Amerada Hess Corp. v. Acampora
109 A.D.2d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Stockfield v. Town Board of Somers
87 A.D.2d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.2d 882, 440 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amerada-hess-corp-v-lefkowitz-nyappdiv-1981.