Persico v. Incorporated Village of Mineola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Persico v. Incorporated Village of Mineola

261 A.D.2d 407, 687 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4487

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 3, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Mineóla dated November 20, 1996, which, after a hearing, revoked a special use permit it had granted to the petitioners, and directed the petitioners to cease all commercial activities at the subject premises, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated June 10, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the determination under review, which revoked a previously-issued special use permit due to noncompliance with the stated conditions, was supported by substantial evidence, and was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see generally, Matter of Buitenkant v Robohm, 122 AD2d 791).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Joy and Krausman, 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 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Mineóla dated November 20, 1996, which, after a hearing, revoked a special use permit it had granted to the petitioners, and directed the petitioners to cease all commercial activities at the subject premises, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated June 10, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the determination under review, which revoked a previously-issued special use permit due to noncompliance with the stated conditions, was supported by substantial evidence, and was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see generally, Matter of Buitenkant v Robohm, 122 AD2d 791).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Persico v. Incorporated Village of Mineola, 261 A.D.2d 407, 687 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

261 A.D.2d 407 (Persico v. Incorporated Village of Mineola) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related