City of Syracuse v. Surles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of Syracuse v. Surles

156 A.D.2d 1029, 549 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16246

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D.2d 1029 (City of Syracuse v. Surles) 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

City of Syracuse v. Surles, 156 A.D.2d 1029, 549 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed with costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The New York State Commissioner of Mental Health rejected the challenge of the City of Syracuse to the establishment of a community residence at 1229 Glenwood Avenue. The city argues on appeal that the Commissioner erred in refusing to consider its contention that a facility housing 10 residents was so large that it would substantially alter the area. There is no merit to this argument. The only objection statutorily entitled to consideration is that the proposed facility would result in such a concentration of facilities that the nature and character of the area would be substantially altered (Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c] [1] [C]). The Commissioner’s determination that the city failed to prove overconcentration of facilities is supported by substantial evidence. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.) Present —Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed with costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The New York State Commissioner of Mental Health rejected the challenge of the City of Syracuse to the establishment of a community residence at 1229 Glenwood Avenue. The city argues on appeal that the Commissioner erred in refusing to consider its contention that a facility housing 10 residents was so large that it would substantially alter the area. There is no merit to this argument. The only objection statutorily entitled to consideration is that the proposed facility would result in such a concentration of facilities that the nature and character of the area would be substantially altered (Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c] [1] [C]). The Commissioner’s determination that the city failed to prove overconcentration of facilities is supported by substantial evidence. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.) Present —Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 1029, 549 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-syracuse-v-surles-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack