Mialto Realty, Inc. v. Town of Patterson

112 A.D.2d 371, 491 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56504
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 22, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 371 (Mialto Realty, Inc. v. Town of Patterson) 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
Mialto Realty, Inc. v. Town of Patterson, 112 A.D.2d 371, 491 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Patterson, made August 9, 1984, which denied petitioner’s application for site plan approval, the appeal, purportedly as a matter of right, is from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Wood, J.), [372]*372dated October 29, 1984, which denied appellants’ motion to dismiss the petition.

On the court’s own motion, appellants’ notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, said application is referred to Justice Rubin and leave to appeal is granted by Justice Rubin (CPLR 5701 [b] [1]).

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Planning Board of the Town of Patterson was without authority to deny petitioner’s application for site plan approval on the ground that, under its interpretation of the local zoning ordinance, the proposed use was not permitted. "The power to interpret the provisions of the local zoning law is vested exclusively in the zoning board of appeals” (Rattner v Planning Commn., 103 AD2d 826; see, Town Law, §§ 267, 274-a; 113 Hillside Ave. Corp. v Village of Westbury, 27 AD2d 858; Matter of Kalen, 248 App Div 777). The local planning board shall not be permitted to disapprove a use under the guise of denying site plan approval (Matter of Gershowitz v Planning Bd., 69 AD2d 460, revd on other grounds 52 NY2d 763). Thus, Special Term properly denied appellants’ motion to dismiss the petition. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Swantz v. Planning Board
34 A.D.3d 1159 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Sprint Spectrum v. Willoth
176 F.3d 630 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth
176 F.3d 630 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Rembar v. Board of Appeals of East Hampton
148 A.D.2d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Moriarty v. Planning Board of Village of Sloatsburg
119 A.D.2d 188 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 A.D.2d 371, 491 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mialto-realty-inc-v-town-of-patterson-nyappdiv-1985.