J.F. O'Healy Construction Co. v. Town of Islip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J.F. O'Healy Construction Co. v. Town of Islip

152 A.D.2d 573, 543 N.Y.S.2d 959, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9702

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 3, 1989·Published

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination of the respondent Town of Islip, dated January 5, 1988, which, inter alia, found that a public use would be served by the acquisition of the petitioner’s property.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

A review of the record reveals that the condemnation proceedings were not procedurally defective under EDPL article 2. The respondent Town of Islip’s findings and determination fully comply with the requirements of EDPL 204, and are not "irrational, baseless or unreasonable” (Matter of Dowling Coll, v Flacke, 78 AD2d 551, 552). Further, the petitioner’s allegation that the condemning authority failed to comply with ECL article 8 is not subject to judicial review in a [574] proceeding pursuant to EDPL article 2 (see, Pizzuti v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 1039).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination of the respondent Town of Islip, dated January 5, 1988, which, inter alia, found that a public use would be served by the acquisition of the petitioner’s property.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

A review of the record reveals that the condemnation proceedings were not procedurally defective under EDPL article 2. The respondent Town of Islip’s findings and determination fully comply with the requirements of EDPL 204, and are not "irrational, baseless or unreasonable” (Matter of Dowling Coll, v Flacke, 78 AD2d 551, 552). Further, the petitioner’s allegation that the condemning authority failed to comply with ECL article 8 is not subject to judicial review in a [574] proceeding pursuant to EDPL article 2 (see, Pizzuti v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 1039).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

J.F. O'Healy Construction Co. v. Town of Islip, 152 A.D.2d 573, 543 N.Y.S.2d 959, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

152 A.D.2d 573 (J.F. O'Healy Construction Co. v. Town of Islip) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related