Matter of SFG ISF Syosset Jericho, LLC v. Stanco

Opinion

Matter of SFG ISF Syosset Jericho, LLC v Stanco

2026 NY Slip Op 05106

August 26, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of SFG ISF Syosset Jericho, LLC, respondent,

v

Angelo Stanco, et al., appellants.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 26, 2026

2024-09598, (Index No. 623609/23)

Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.

Janice A. Taylor

Carl J. Landicino

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Bee Ready Law Group, LLP, Mineola, NY (Christopher J. Neumann of counsel), for appellants.

Farrell Fritz, P.C., Hauppauge, NY (Anthony S. Guardino and Rachel A. Scelfo of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Oyster Bay Planning Advisory Board dated August 23, 2023, which denied, after a hearing, the petitioner's application for site plan approval, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (James F. Quinn, J.), dated May 30, 2024. The judgment granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter to the Town of Oyster Bay Planning Advisory Board for the issuance of certain permits to the petitioner.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner owned a parcel of real property located in Syosset. In January 2022, the petitioner applied to the Town of Oyster Bay Planning Advisory Board (hereinafter the Planning Board) for site plan approval to develop the property for use as storage for registered commercial vehicles for a third-party logistics company. Following a public hearing, in a resolution dated August 23, 2023, the Planning Board denied the petitioner's application. In September 2023, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the Planning Board's determination. In a judgment dated May 30, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter to the Planning Board for the issuance of certain permits to the petitioner. The Planning Board appeals.

A local planning board has broad discretion in deciding applications for site plan approval, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the board's action was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Simon v Englert, 185 AD3d 940, 941; Matter of Bagga v Stanco, 90 AD3d 919, 920). Where, as here, a determination is made after a public hearing that is not a quasi-judicial hearing based upon sworn testimony, "courts consider 'substantial evidence' only to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board's determination" (Matter of Campbell v Town of Mount Pleasant Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 84 AD3d 1230, 1231 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Fildon, LLC v Planning Bd. of Inc. Vil. of Hempstead, 164 AD3d 501, 502). A determination will not be deemed rational if it rests entirely on subjective considerations, such as general community opposition, and is conclusory and without objective factual basis (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308; [*2]Matter of Ramapo Pinnacle Props., LLC v Village of Airmont Planning Bd., 145 AD3d 729, 730).

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the Planning Board's determination was not supported by the evidence in the record and, therefore, lacked a rational basis. The only evidence in the record concerning the traffic and safety issues cited by the Planning Board in the determination was the conclusory opposition of neighboring residents, which was not supported by any of the Planning Board's consultants, and was contradicted by a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act adopted by the Planning Board and the traffic impact study prepared by the petitioner's consultants (see Matter of Ramapo Pinnacle Props., LLC v Village of Airmont Planning Bd., 145 AD3d at 731; Matter of Bagga v Stanco, 90 AD3d at 920). Moreover, the petitioner's application fully complies with the requirements of the Town Code of the Town of Oyster Bay and is a permitted principal use within the zoning district in which the property is situated. Under these circumstances, the Planning Board's determination was improperly based upon generalized community opposition (see Matter of Ramapo Pinnacle Props., LLC v Village of Airmont Planning Bd., 145 AD3d at 731; Matter of Bagga v Stanco, 90 AD3d at 921).

The Planning Board's remaining contentions are without merit.

IANNACCI, J.P., TAYLOR, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court