Pebble Hill Building Corp. v. Madelik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pebble Hill Building Corp. v. Madelik

143 A.D.3d 684, 38 N.Y.S.3d 433

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

DecidedOctober 5, 2016

Docket2014-06567

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 143 A.D.3d 684 (Pebble Hill Building Corp. v. Madelik) 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

Pebble Hill Building Corp. v. Madelik, 143 A.D.3d 684, 38 N.Y.S.3d 433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for declaratory relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), *685 dated April 22, 2014, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied its cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that, although brought as a declaratory judgment action, the true nature of the instant matter is directed toward review of an agency determination and, therefore, is governed by CPLR article 78 (see Tornheim v Fiala, 136 AD3d 797, 797 [2016]; Spinney at Pond View, LLC v Town Bd. of the Town of Schodack, 99 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2012]; Block 3066, Inc. v City of New York, 89 AD3d 655, 656 [2011]; Matter of Rose Woods, LLC v Weisman, 85 AD3d 801, 803 [2011]; Town of Riverhead v County of Suffolk, 78 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2010]). The plaintiff, in effect, seeks review of a resolution adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington dated June 17, 2009, requiring the plaintiff, as conditions of final approval of a subdivision map, to both reserve a portion of the property as a conservation area and pay a recreation fee. Since the resolution was filed with the office of the Town Clerk on June 22, 2009, this action, commenced in December 2010, was time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]; Town Law § 282; Leonard v Planning Bd. of Town of Union Vale, 136 AD3d 868, 870-871 [2016]; Rose Woods, LLC v Weisman, 85 AD3d at 803; Matter of Preservation Collective v Town of Monroe, 32 AD3d 396, 397-398 [2006]; Matter of International Innovative Tech. Group Corp. v Planning Bd. of Town of Woodbury, N.Y., 20 AD3d 531, 532-533 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for declaratory relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), *685 dated April 22, 2014, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied its cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that, although brought as a declaratory judgment action, the true nature of the instant matter is directed toward review of an agency determination and, therefore, is governed by CPLR article 78 (see Tornheim v Fiala, 136 AD3d 797, 797 [2016]; Spinney at Pond View, LLC v Town Bd. of the Town of Schodack, 99 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2012]; Block 3066, Inc. v City of New York, 89 AD3d 655, 656 [2011]; Matter of Rose Woods, LLC v Weisman, 85 AD3d 801, 803 [2011]; Town of Riverhead v County of Suffolk, 78 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2010]). The plaintiff, in effect, seeks review of a resolution adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington dated June 17, 2009, requiring the plaintiff, as conditions of final approval of a subdivision map, to both reserve a portion of the property as a conservation area and pay a recreation fee. Since the resolution was filed with the office of the Town Clerk on June 22, 2009, this action, commenced in December 2010, was time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]; Town Law § 282; Leonard v Planning Bd. of Town of Union Vale, 136 AD3d 868, 870-871 [2016]; Rose Woods, LLC v Weisman, 85 AD3d at 803; Matter of Preservation Collective v Town of Monroe, 32 AD3d 396, 397-398 [2006]; Matter of International Innovative Tech. Group Corp. v Planning Bd. of Town of Woodbury, N.Y., 20 AD3d 531, 532-533 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.3d 684, 38 N.Y.S.3d 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pebble-hill-building-corp-v-madelik-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack