Hunting Hill Civic Ass'n v. Town of Oyster Bay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hunting Hill Civic Ass'n v. Town of Oyster Bay

273 A.D.2d 237, 709 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262

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

DecidedJune 5, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 237 (Hunting Hill Civic Ass'n v. Town of Oyster Bay) 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

Hunting Hill Civic Ass'n v. Town of Oyster Bay, 273 A.D.2d 237, 709 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay which denied landmark status to certain real property owned by the respondents Alfred Votypka and Barbara Votypka, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered June 7, 1999, as amended November 1, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The respondent Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay denied landmark designation status to the subject property because it had no historic value and was not an acceptable candidate for landmark status. We agree with the Supreme Court that the determination of the Town Board is supported by the record, has a reasonable basis in law, and is not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v City of New York, 82 NY2d 35, 41; Matter of 400 E. 64/ 65th St. Block Assn. v City of New York, 183 AD2d 531). O’Brien, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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 Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay which denied landmark status to certain real property owned by the respondents Alfred Votypka and Barbara Votypka, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered June 7, 1999, as amended November 1, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The respondent Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay denied landmark designation status to the subject property because it had no historic value and was not an acceptable candidate for landmark status. We agree with the Supreme Court that the determination of the Town Board is supported by the record, has a reasonable basis in law, and is not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v City of New York, 82 NY2d 35, 41; Matter of 400 E. 64/ 65th St. Block Assn. v City of New York, 183 AD2d 531). O’Brien, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 237, 709 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunting-hill-civic-assn-v-town-of-oyster-bay-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack