Kam Hampton I Realty Corp. v. Zagata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kam Hampton I Realty Corp. v. Zagata

251 A.D.2d 665, 676 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7872

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

DecidedJune 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 665 (Kam Hampton I Realty Corp. v. Zagata) 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

Kam Hampton I Realty Corp. v. Zagata, 251 A.D.2d 665, 676 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated September 26, 1996, which granted a permit to Travertine Corporation, the petitioner appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered June 10, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 5, 1997, which amended the judgment, and (3) an order of the same court, dated September 24, 1997, which denied its motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 24, [666]*6661997, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment and the order dated June 5, 1997, are affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

Since the petitioner failed to join a necessary party to the proceeding, the court properly dismissed the petition (see, CPLR 1001 [a]; cf., Matter of Baker v Town of Roxbury, 220 AD2d 961; Matter of Llana v Town of Pittstown, 234 AD2d 881, 884).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit (see, Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173; Vanderburg v Brodman, 231 AD2d 146). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, 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 respondent New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated September 26, 1996, which granted a permit to Travertine Corporation, the petitioner appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered June 10, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 5, 1997, which amended the judgment, and (3) an order of the same court, dated September 24, 1997, which denied its motion for reargument.