James L. Garrett Co. v. Ouldenschuh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

James L. Garrett Co. v. Ouldenschuh

49 A.D.2d 800, 373 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10854

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 800 (James L. Garrett Co. v. Ouldenschuh) 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

James L. Garrett Co. v. Ouldenschuh, 49 A.D.2d 800, 373 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for reargument, or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Memorandum: Appellants move for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals arguing, as before, that the denial of their application for approval of a clustered subdivision under section 281 of the Town Law was for the sole and exclusive reason that the subdivision would be clustered. Such is not among the reasons stated by the Planning Board of the Town of Brighton in its November 6, 1974 denial of appellants’ application. The charts and photographs presented as exhibits reveal that the clustered homes proposed to be built by Garrett have a different appearance from single-family dwellings which comprise all of the homes in the vicinity of the proposed development. The opposition spread on the record of the public hearing by residents of the area opposed to changing the character of their neighborhood together with the charts and photographs furnished a rational and substantial basis for the decision of the planning board. Special Term correctly concluded that it may not substitute its judgment for that of the planning board so long as the planning board’s determination found support in the evidence and was not illegal, arbitrary or capricious. Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Mahoney and Del Vecchio, JJ.

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

Motion for reargument, or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Memorandum: Appellants move for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals arguing, as before, that the denial of their application for approval of a clustered subdivision under section 281 of the Town Law was for the sole and exclusive reason that the subdivision would be clustered. Such is not among the reasons stated by the Planning Board of the Town of Brighton in its November 6, 1974 denial of appellants’ application. The charts and photographs presented as exhibits reveal that the clustered homes proposed to be built by Garrett have a different appearance from single-family dwellings which comprise all of the homes in the vicinity of the proposed development. The opposition spread on the record of the public hearing by residents of the area opposed to changing the character of their neighborhood together with the charts and photographs furnished a rational and substantial basis for the decision of the planning board. Special Term correctly concluded that it may not substitute its judgment for that of the planning board so long as the planning board’s determination found support in the evidence and was not illegal, arbitrary or capricious. Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Mahoney and Del Vecchio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 800, 373 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-l-garrett-co-v-ouldenschuh-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack