MacKnight v. Sutton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MacKnight v. Sutton

198 A.D.2d 853, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1002

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 853 (MacKnight v. Sutton) 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

MacKnight v. Sutton, 198 A.D.2d 853, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Article IX, (§ 2 [I]) of the Town of Alexandria Zoning Ordinance provides that an appeal from a decision of the Planning Board regarding a site plan review shall be taken pursuant to CPLR article 78. The court properly affirmed the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals denying petitioners’ application seeking review of a site plan by the Planning Board.

Supreme Court’s denial of petitioners’ motion to reargue is not appealable (see, Pennino v Lasersurge, Inc., 178 AD2d 939). Additionally, the denial of their motion to renew was proper because it was not based on additional material facts unknown at the time of the prior proceeding (see, Matter of Beiny, 132 AD2d 190, lv dismissed 71 NY2d 994).

Finally, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondents’ cross motion for sanctions (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; see also, Papelino v Papelino, 187 AD2d 999). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J. — Article 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Article IX, (§ 2 [I]) of the Town of Alexandria Zoning Ordinance provides that an appeal from a decision of the Planning Board regarding a site plan review shall be taken pursuant to CPLR article 78. The court properly affirmed the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals denying petitioners’ application seeking review of a site plan by the Planning Board.

Supreme Court’s denial of petitioners’ motion to reargue is not appealable (see, Pennino v Lasersurge, Inc., 178 AD2d 939). Additionally, the denial of their motion to renew was proper because it was not based on additional material facts unknown at the time of the prior proceeding (see, Matter of Beiny, 132 AD2d 190, lv dismissed 71 NY2d 994).

Finally, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondents’ cross motion for sanctions (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; see also, Papelino v Papelino, 187 AD2d 999). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J. — Article 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 853, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macknight-v-sutton-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack