Caltagirone v. Zoning Board of Appeals
This text of 49 A.D.3d 729 (Caltagirone v. Zoning Board of Appeals) 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.
Opinions
A person whose interest may be adversely affected by a potential judgment must be made a party in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Martin v Ronan, 47 NY2d 486, 490 [1979]; Matter of Cybul v Village of Scarsdale, 17 AD3d 462, 463 [2005]; cf. Matter of Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 49 AD3d 749 [2008] [decided herewith]). Here, the Supreme Court, after correctly balancing the factors articulated in CPLR 1001 (b) (see Matter of Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 5 NY3d 452 [2005]), properly dismissed the proceeding for failure to timely join the landowners as necessary parties (see Matter of Cybul v Village of Scarsdale, 17 AD3d 462, 463 [2005]; Matter of East Bayside Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Chin, 12 AD3d 370, 371 [2004]; Matter of Ferruggia v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Warwick, 5 AD3d 682 [2004]; Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v Town of Islip, 286 AD2d 683 [2001]; Matter of Karmel v White Plains Common Council, 284 AD2d 464, 465 [2001]).
The petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or need not be reached in light of our determination. Skelos, J.P., Santucci and Garni, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
49 A.D.3d 729, 852 N.Y.2d 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caltagirone-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2008.