Anzisi v. Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst

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

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

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

88 A.D.3d 995 (Anzisi v. Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ifrah v. Utschig
774 N.E.2d 732 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Davies Farm, LLC v. Planning Board of Clarkstown
54 A.D.3d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Kearney v. Kita
62 A.D.3d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)