Lund v. Yorktown Planning Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lund v. Yorktown Planning Board

261 A.D.2d 622, 688 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5662

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

DecidedMay 24, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 622 (Lund v. Yorktown Planning Board) 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

Lund v. Yorktown Planning Board, 261 A.D.2d 622, 688 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent to determine the petitioner’s purported application for site plan approval, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered January 13, 1998, which upon, in effect, granting the respondent’s motion for renewal, vacated a prior judgment of the same court dated July 11, 1997, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

[623]*623Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion, in effect, granted leave to renew, and upon renewal, properly vacated a prior judgment and dismissed the proceeding.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann 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 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent to determine the petitioner’s purported application for site plan approval, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered January 13, 1998, which upon, in effect, granting the respondent’s motion for renewal, vacated a prior judgment of the same court dated July 11, 1997, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

[623]*623Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion, in effect, granted leave to renew, and upon renewal, properly vacated a prior judgment and dismissed the proceeding.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 622, 688 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lund-v-yorktown-planning-board-nyappdiv-1999.