Home/New York Court of Appeals/MATTER OF EMMETT v. Town of Edmeston

MATTER OF EMMETT v. Town of Edmeston

814 N.E.2d 430, 2 N.Y.3d 817, 781 N.Y.S.2d 260, 2 N.Y. 817, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1383
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 8, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 814 N.E.2d 430 (MATTER OF EMMETT v. Town of Edmeston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MATTER OF EMMETT v. Town of Edmeston, 814 N.E.2d 430, 2 N.Y.3d 817, 781 N.Y.S.2d 260, 2 N.Y. 817, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1383 (N.Y. 2004).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Petitioners’ claims are directed at a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) determination granting a variance. Petitioners cannot invoke the “relation back” doctrine (see CPLR 203 [b]) to avoid dismissal for failure to join the ZBA, a necessary party (see CPLR 1001, 1003). Use of the “relation back” doctrine requires “unity of interest” between the party in the proceeding and the nonparty (see Mondello v New York Blood Ctr.—Greater N.Y. Blood Program, 80 NY2d 219, 226 [1992]). Petitioners’ claim that the Town and the ZBA are united in interest must fail because a town and a zoning board of appeals are independent of each other where, as here, the ZBA is acting in its “administrative capacity independent from the Town Board” (Matter of Commeo, Inc. v Amelkin, 62 NY2d 260, 266 [1984]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

U.S. Bank N.A. v. 1702 Dean, LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 04501 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of A&F Scaccia Realty Corp. v. New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection
2021 NY Slip Op 06995 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Janiga v. Town of W. Seneca Zoning Bd. of Appeals
2019 NY Slip Op 5859 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Ferrara v. Jerome Zisfein
2019 NY Slip Op 96 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Sullivan v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Mamakating
2017 NY Slip Op 5297 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Soldatenko v. Village of Scarsdale Zoning Bd. of Appeals
138 A.D.3d 1002 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of TAC Peek Equities, Ltd. v. Town of Putnam Val. Zoning Bd. of Appeals
127 A.D.3d 1216 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
MatterofAyudaReFunding,LLCvTownofLiberty
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Ayuda Re Funding, LLC v. Town of Liberty
121 A.D.3d 1474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Mahinda v. Board of Collective Bargaining
91 A.D.3d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Bikur Cholim, Inc. v. Village of Suffern
664 F. Supp. 2d 267 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Powers v. Groodt
43 A.D.3d 509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Romeo v. New York State Department of Education
41 A.D.3d 1102 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Board of Standards
839 N.E.2d 878 (New York Court of Appeals, 2005)
Wittenberg Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. Town of Woodstock Planning Board
16 A.D.3d 991 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
814 N.E.2d 430, 2 N.Y.3d 817, 781 N.Y.S.2d 260, 2 N.Y. 817, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-emmett-v-town-of-edmeston-ny-2004.