Artrip v. Incorporated Village of Piermont

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Artrip v. Incorporated Village of Piermont

267 A.D.2d 457, 700 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13318

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 457 (Artrip v. Incorporated Village of Piermont) 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

Artrip v. Incorporated Village of Piermont, 267 A.D.2d 457, 700 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review certain determinations of the municipal respondents which, inter alia, granted variances and site plan approval for the development of property owned by Paradise Development Corp. and for which Daniel Pullo was the contract vendee, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated January 12, 1999, which granted Daniel Pullo’s motion to dismiss the proceeding for failure to join necessary parties.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The petitioners failed to join Daniel Pullo and Paradise River Development Corp. as respondents, and it is undisputed that both are necessary parties. Since Paradise River Development Corp. did not voluntarily appear or participate in the proceeding, and since the applicable Statute of Limitations had run, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding (see, Matter of New York City Audubon Socy. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 262 AD2d 324; Matter of Save Our-Open Space v Planning Bd., 256 AD2d 581; Matter of Kam [458]*458Hampton I Realty Corp. v Zagata, 251 AD2d 665, 666). S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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, inter alia, to review certain determinations of the municipal respondents which, inter alia, granted variances and site plan approval for the development of property owned by Paradise Development Corp. and for which Daniel Pullo was the contract vendee, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated January 12, 1999, which granted Daniel Pullo’s motion to dismiss the proceeding for failure to join necessary parties.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The petitioners failed to join Daniel Pullo and Paradise River Development Corp. as respondents, and it is undisputed that both are necessary parties. Since Paradise River Development Corp. did not voluntarily appear or participate in the proceeding, and since the applicable Statute of Limitations had run, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding (see, Matter of New York City Audubon Socy. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 262 AD2d 324; Matter of Save Our-Open Space v Planning Bd., 256 AD2d 581; Matter of Kam [458]*458Hampton I Realty Corp. v Zagata, 251 AD2d 665, 666). S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 457, 700 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/artrip-v-incorporated-village-of-piermont-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack