Lynn v. Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lynn v. Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton

89 A.D.3d 1028, 933 N.Y.2d 567

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 1028 (Lynn v. Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton) 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

Lynn v. Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton, 89 A.D.3d 1028, 933 N.Y.2d 567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

There is no evidence in this record that the respondent’s determination was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Fairway Manor, Inc. v Bertinelli, 81 AD3d 821, 823 [2011]; Matter of Commercial Real Asset Mgt. Inc. v Kessler, 38 AD3d 542, 543 [2007]). The petitioners failed to demonstrate a material change of circumstances since the time of the initial approval of the plat or submit new evidence which would warrant modification of the subdivision plat approved in 1995 (Matter of 1066 Land Corp. v Planning Bd. of Town of Austerlitz, 218 AD2d 887, 887 [1995]; Matter of Marx v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Mill Neck, 185 AD2d 348, 349 [1992]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition [1029]*1029and dismissed the proceeding. Leventhal, J.E, Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

There is no evidence in this record that the respondent’s determination was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Fairway Manor, Inc. v Bertinelli, 81 AD3d 821, 823 [2011]; Matter of Commercial Real Asset Mgt. Inc. v Kessler, 38 AD3d 542, 543 [2007]). The petitioners failed to demonstrate a material change of circumstances since the time of the initial approval of the plat or submit new evidence which would warrant modification of the subdivision plat approved in 1995 (Matter of 1066 Land Corp. v Planning Bd. of Town of Austerlitz, 218 AD2d 887, 887 [1995]; Matter of Marx v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Mill Neck, 185 AD2d 348, 349 [1992]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition [1029]*1029and dismissed the proceeding. Leventhal, J.E, Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 1028, 933 N.Y.2d 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynn-v-planning-board-of-the-town-of-east-hampton-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack