Baycrest Manor, Inc. v. Commissioner of Environmental Conservation Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baycrest Manor, Inc. v. Commissioner of Environmental Conservation Department

58 A.D.2d 601, 395 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12649

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

DecidedJune 13, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 601 (Baycrest Manor, Inc. v. Commissioner of Environmental Conservation Department) 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

Baycrest Manor, Inc. v. Commissioner of Environmental Conservation Department, 58 A.D.2d 601, 395 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to declare that respondent’s determination, made after a hearing, denying petitioner’s application for a moratorium permit to allow construction upon certain wetlands, is the equivalent of a taking of petitioner’s property without compensation, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, [602]*602Richmond County, dated December 7, 1976, which dismissed the petition. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision which dismissed the petition and substituting therefor provisions (1) declaring that the determination was not a taking of petitioner’s property without compensation and (2) otherwise dismissing the proceeding on the merits. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent. The statutes involved herein are not unconstitutional as applied. Martuscello, J. P., Latham and Margett, JJ., concur; O’Connor, J., dissents and votes to hold the appeal in abeyance, with the following memorandum: In view of the decision of this court in Matter of Russo v New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (55 AD2d 935), a determination of this appeal at the present time would be inappropriate.

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 declare that respondent’s determination, made after a hearing, denying petitioner’s application for a moratorium permit to allow construction upon certain wetlands, is the equivalent of a taking of petitioner’s property without compensation, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, [602]*602Richmond County, dated December 7, 1976, which dismissed the petition. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision which dismissed the petition and substituting therefor provisions (1) declaring that the determination was not a taking of petitioner’s property without compensation and (2) otherwise dismissing the proceeding on the merits. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent. The statutes involved herein are not unconstitutional as applied. Martuscello, J. P., Latham and Margett, JJ., concur; O’Connor, J., dissents and votes to hold the appeal in abeyance, with the following memorandum: In view of the decision of this court in Matter of Russo v New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (55 AD2d 935), a determination of this appeal at the present time would be inappropriate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 601, 395 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baycrest-manor-inc-v-commissioner-of-environmental-conservation-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack