Feld v. Aron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feld v. Aron

72 A.D.2d 603, 421 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13721

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 603 (Feld v. Aron) 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

Feld v. Aron, 72 A.D.2d 603, 421 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Village of Spring Valley, dated December 15, 1977, approving the subdivision plat for the property of G & G Park Partnership, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered July 12, 1978, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs payable jointly to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs. Although the statute (General Municipal Law, § 239-n) requires that a local planning board state in its resolution its reasons for acting contrary to a disapproval of a subdivision plat by a county planning agency, we consider that the statute was substantially complied with by the recital in the minutes of the respondent planning board, following the adoption of the resolution approving the subdivision plat, that the statements of two of the members of the planning board were attached and made a part of the record (cf. Matter of [604]*604Weinstein v Nicosia, 32 Misc 2d 246, 250, affd 18 AD2d 881). In effect, those statements constituted the reasons for the action of the planning board contrary to the recommendation of the county planning agency. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Village of Spring Valley, dated December 15, 1977, approving the subdivision plat for the property of G & G Park Partnership, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered July 12, 1978, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs payable jointly to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs. Although the statute (General Municipal Law, § 239-n) requires that a local planning board state in its resolution its reasons for acting contrary to a disapproval of a subdivision plat by a county planning agency, we consider that the statute was substantially complied with by the recital in the minutes of the respondent planning board, following the adoption of the resolution approving the subdivision plat, that the statements of two of the members of the planning board were attached and made a part of the record (cf. Matter of [604]*604Weinstein v Nicosia, 32 Misc 2d 246, 250, affd 18 AD2d 881). In effect, those statements constituted the reasons for the action of the planning board contrary to the recommendation of the county planning agency. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 603, 421 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feld-v-aron-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack