Hannafey v. Board of Trustees

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hannafey v. Board of Trustees

294 A.D.2d 365, 741 N.Y.S.2d 721, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4854

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

DecidedMay 6, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 365 (Hannafey v. Board of Trustees) 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

Hannafey v. Board of Trustees, 294 A.D.2d 365, 741 N.Y.S.2d 721, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Malverne, dated September 21, 2000, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for a special exception permit, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated March 13, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The reviewing court in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 will not substitute its judgment for that of the local Village Board unless it clearly appears to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the law (see Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin, 11 NY2d 20; see also Matter of Retail Prop. Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 281 AD2d 549; Matter of Unal v Peterson, 261 AD2d 551). Here, the denial of the petitioners’ application was rationally based and, accordingly, the proceeding was properly dismissed (see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801; Matter of Marriott Corp. v Rose, 168 AD2d 682; Matter of Dausey v Kelley, 137 AD2d 686; Matter of Wen & Liz Realty Corp. v Town of Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 94 AD2d 182).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Townes, 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 Board of Trustees of the Village of Malverne, dated September 21, 2000, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for a special exception permit, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated March 13, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The reviewing court in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 will not substitute its judgment for that of the local Village Board unless it clearly appears to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the law (see Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin, 11 NY2d 20; see also Matter of Retail Prop. Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 281 AD2d 549; Matter of Unal v Peterson, 261 AD2d 551). Here, the denial of the petitioners’ application was rationally based and, accordingly, the proceeding was properly dismissed (see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801; Matter of Marriott Corp. v Rose, 168 AD2d 682; Matter of Dausey v Kelley, 137 AD2d 686; Matter of Wen & Liz Realty Corp. v Town of Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 94 AD2d 182).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 365, 741 N.Y.S.2d 721, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hannafey-v-board-of-trustees-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack