Bierworth-Riedman Homes, Inc. v. Mulligan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bierworth-Riedman Homes, Inc. v. Mulligan

259 A.D.2d 972, 688 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3084

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 972 (Bierworth-Riedman Homes, Inc. v. Mulligan) 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

Bierworth-Riedman Homes, Inc. v. Mulligan, 259 A.D.2d 972, 688 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3084 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Galloway, J.). We add only that respondents properly relied on the standards set forth in Henrietta Town Code § 127-48 (A) and (B) in denying the application and that respondents’ determination with respect to those standards is supported by the record. Although petitioner is not foreclosed from seeking a future modification of the original subdivision plan approved in 1989, petitioner has the burden of establishing that any future modification will not violate the standards set forth in the Town Code. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Galloway, J.). We add only that respondents properly relied on the standards set forth in Henrietta Town Code § 127-48 (A) and (B) in denying the application and that respondents’ determination with respect to those standards is supported by the record. Although petitioner is not foreclosed from seeking a future modification of the original subdivision plan approved in 1989, petitioner has the burden of establishing that any future modification will not violate the standards set forth in the Town Code. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 972, 688 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bierworth-riedman-homes-inc-v-mulligan-nyappdiv-1999.