Anzisi v. Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anzisi v. Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst

88 A.D.3d 995, 931 N.Y.2d 532

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.3d 995 (Anzisi v. Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst) 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

Anzisi v. Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst, 88 A.D.3d 995, 931 N.Y.2d 532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[996]*996A local planning board has broad discretion in reaching its determination on applications for subdividing property, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Kearney v Kita, 62 AD3d 1000 [2009]; Matter of Davies Farm, LLC, v Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 54 AD3d 757, 758 [2008]; see generally Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]). Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst to deny his application for subdivision approval had a rational basis, was not arbitrary or capricious, and was not illegal (see Matter of Kearney v Kita, 62 AD3d at 1001-1002). Angiolillo, J.R, Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

[996]*996A local planning board has broad discretion in reaching its determination on applications for subdividing property, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Kearney v Kita, 62 AD3d 1000 [2009]; Matter of Davies Farm, LLC, v Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 54 AD3d 757, 758 [2008]; see generally Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]). Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst to deny his application for subdivision approval had a rational basis, was not arbitrary or capricious, and was not illegal (see Matter of Kearney v Kita, 62 AD3d at 1001-1002). Angiolillo, J.R, Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 995, 931 N.Y.2d 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anzisi-v-incorporated-village-of-lindenhurst-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack