Interelectronics Corp. v. Morehouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Interelectronics Corp. v. Morehouse

267 A.D.2d 458, 700 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13276

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 458 (Interelectronics Corp. v. Morehouse) 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

Interelectronics Corp. v. Morehouse, 267 A.D.2d 458, 700 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Ardsley, dated March 18, 1996, which, among other things, made findings pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8) and amended the Village of Ardsley Zoning Code accordingly, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered January 14, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8) review conducted by the respondents was not made in violation of lawful procedure, arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Goldstein 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, inter alia, to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Ardsley, dated March 18, 1996, which, among other things, made findings pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8) and amended the Village of Ardsley Zoning Code accordingly, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered January 14, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8) review conducted by the respondents was not made in violation of lawful procedure, arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 458, 700 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interelectronics-corp-v-morehouse-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack