Moundroukas v. Foley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moundroukas v. Foley

99 A.D.2d 784, 472 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17166

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 784 (Moundroukas v. Foley) 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

Moundroukas v. Foley, 99 A.D.2d 784, 472 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17166 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Greenburgh, which denied petitioner’s application for a zoning variance, petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosenblatt, J.), entered February 18, 1983, as dismissed his petition insofar as it sought money damages. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. We agree with Special Term that the challenged actions of the respondents in connection with the denial of petitioner’s application for a zoning variance were discretionary and quasi-judicial in nature and, therefore, respondents are immune from suit for monetary damages (see Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34; Rottkamp v Young, 21 AD2d 373, affd 15 NY2d 831). In addition, we note that petitioner was not in any way deprived of his due process rights at the administrative hearing. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Greenburgh, which denied petitioner’s application for a zoning variance, petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosenblatt, J.), entered February 18, 1983, as dismissed his petition insofar as it sought money damages. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. We agree with Special Term that the challenged actions of the respondents in connection with the denial of petitioner’s application for a zoning variance were discretionary and quasi-judicial in nature and, therefore, respondents are immune from suit for monetary damages (see Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34; Rottkamp v Young, 21 AD2d 373, affd 15 NY2d 831). In addition, we note that petitioner was not in any way deprived of his due process rights at the administrative hearing. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 784, 472 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moundroukas-v-foley-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack