Matter of Sherwin v. Village of Goshen Zoning Bd. of Appeals

139 A.D.3d 962, 30 N.Y.S.3d 577
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 18, 2016
Docket2014-07994
StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 962 (Matter of Sherwin v. Village of Goshen Zoning Bd. of Appeals) 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
Matter of Sherwin v. Village of Goshen Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 139 A.D.3d 962, 30 N.Y.S.3d 577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Village of Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals dated December 19, 2013, which, after a hearing, affirmed the issuance of a building permit by the Village of Goshen Building Inspector to the respondent C.H. Development Corp. for the construction of a single-family dwelling, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated June 30, 2014, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion” (Matter of Arceri v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 16 AD3d 411, 412 [2005]). Here, the determination of the Village of Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals that McNally Street had become a village street pursuant to Village Law § 6-626 and, therefore, that a building permit was properly issued to the respondent C.H. Development Corp. for the construction of a single-family dwelling has a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR 7803; Matter of Marchand v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 19 NY3d 616 [2012]; Kingsley v Village of Cooperstown, 107 AD3d 1092 [2013]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Leventhal, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Marchand v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
973 N.E.2d 1270 (New York Court of Appeals, 2012)
Arceri v. Town of Islip Zoning Board of Appeals
16 A.D.3d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Kingsley v. Village of Cooperstown
107 A.D.3d 1092 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 A.D.3d 962, 30 N.Y.S.3d 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-sherwin-v-village-of-goshen-zoning-bd-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2016.