Camardo v. Michelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Camardo v. Michelman

12 A.D.3d 1176, 784 N.Y.S.2d 439, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14026

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 1176 (Camardo v. Michelman) 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

Camardo v. Michelman, 12 A.D.3d 1176, 784 N.Y.S.2d 439, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), entered May 18, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment declared that section 305-34 (B) (5) (c) of the Auburn City Code, as amended by Ordinance No. 1-2002, is vague, invalid and unenforceable.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment (denominated order) in this CPLR article 78 proceeding that declared Auburn City Code § 305-34 (B) (5) (c) of the Auburn City Code to be vague, invalid and unenforceable. The petition must be dismissed because petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (see Matter of Hays v Walrath, 271 AD2d 744, 745 [2000]; Matter of Parisella v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Fishkill, 188 AD2d 712, 713 [1992], lv denied 82 NY2d 653 [1993]). We therefore reverse the judgment, grant the motion of respondent City of Auburn Planning Board to dismiss the petition and dismiss the petition. Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Green, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), entered May 18, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment declared that section 305-34 (B) (5) (c) of the Auburn City Code, as amended by Ordinance No. 1-2002, is vague, invalid and unenforceable.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment (denominated order) in this CPLR article 78 proceeding that declared Auburn City Code § 305-34 (B) (5) (c) of the Auburn City Code to be vague, invalid and unenforceable. The petition must be dismissed because petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (see Matter of Hays v Walrath, 271 AD2d 744, 745 [2000]; Matter of Parisella v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Fishkill, 188 AD2d 712, 713 [1992], lv denied 82 NY2d 653 [1993]). We therefore reverse the judgment, grant the motion of respondent City of Auburn Planning Board to dismiss the petition and dismiss the petition. Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Green, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 1176, 784 N.Y.S.2d 439, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camardo-v-michelman-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack