Marshall v. Town of Pittsford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marshall v. Town of Pittsford

105 A.D.2d 1140, 482 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21238

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1140 (Marshall v. Town of Pittsford) 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

Marshall v. Town of Pittsford, 105 A.D.2d 1140, 482 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition unanimously granted, without costs, determination annulled and respondent directed to comply with the public hearing requirements of EDPL article 2. Memorandum: Petitioners seek review of respondent’s determination that a proposed taking of an eight-foot strip along the north edge of petitioners’ property for the purpose of building a sidewalk is de minimis and, hence, not subject to compliance with the provisions of EDPL 206 (subd [D]).

Having considered the quantity of land sought to be acquired, nearly 2,600 square feet of petitioners’ residential lot, and the [1141]*1141significant public controversy revealed by the record over the location of the sidewalk, we find that the proposed taking is not de minimis and direct respondent to comply with the public hearing requirements of EDPL article 2. (EDPL 207, subd [B].) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, O’Donnell, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Petition unanimously granted, without costs, determination annulled and respondent directed to comply with the public hearing requirements of EDPL article 2. Memorandum: Petitioners seek review of respondent’s determination that a proposed taking of an eight-foot strip along the north edge of petitioners’ property for the purpose of building a sidewalk is de minimis and, hence, not subject to compliance with the provisions of EDPL 206 (subd [D]).

Having considered the quantity of land sought to be acquired, nearly 2,600 square feet of petitioners’ residential lot, and the [1141]*1141significant public controversy revealed by the record over the location of the sidewalk, we find that the proposed taking is not de minimis and direct respondent to comply with the public hearing requirements of EDPL article 2. (EDPL 207, subd [B].) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, O’Donnell, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 1140, 482 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-town-of-pittsford-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack