Porpora v. Keating

New York Supreme Court

Porpora v. Keating

13 Misc. 2d 488, 177 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2140

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 21, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 13 Misc. 2d 488 (Porpora v. Keating) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Porpora v. Keating, 13 Misc. 2d 488, 177 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2140 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Samuel W. Eager, J.

This is an article 78 proceeding brought against the Mayor and Trustees of a village seeking a review of their proceedings in connection with an application to tbo Board [489]*489of Trustees for a change in the local zoning ordinance. The respondents move to dismiss this article 78 proceeding upon the ground that the petition herein is insufficient on its face to entitle the petitioner to any relief. It appears that what the petitioner sought in the matter of his application to the Board of Trustees was an amendment of the village ordinance to change the zoning classification of his property. What the petitioner sought was action by the Board of Trustees in the nature of a legislative act. It is settled that, except as specifically provided by statute, an article 78 proceeding will not lie to compel a legislative body to act in a particular manner with respect to proposed legislation or to review the proceedings of a legislative body in connection with proposed legislation. (Matter of Larkin Co. v. Schwab, 242 N. Y. 330; Matter of Weers v. Whiton, 3 A D 2d 924.) Nor is the proceeding maintainable as one to secure an order in the nature of a mandamus order to compel the Village Board to hold a public hearing in connection with the petitioner’s application to the board for the change in the ordinance. Where the board determines to take no action with respect to such an application, I do not read the Village Law or local ordinance as requiring the holding by it of a public hearing.

Clearly, also, there is no basis for the request by the petitioner that this proceeding be transferred to the Appellate Division for determination. The decision of Matter of O’Brien (N. Y. L. J., Oct. 14, 1957, p. 14, col. 4) cited by petitioner is not in point.

Motion granted and proceeding dismissed, without costs.

Settle order on notice.

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

Samuel W. Eager, J.

This is an article 78 proceeding brought against the Mayor and Trustees of a village seeking a review of their proceedings in connection with an application to tbo Board [489]*489of Trustees for a change in the local zoning ordinance. The respondents move to dismiss this article 78 proceeding upon the ground that the petition herein is insufficient on its face to entitle the petitioner to any relief. It appears that what the petitioner sought in the matter of his application to the Board of Trustees was an amendment of the village ordinance to change the zoning classification of his property. What the petitioner sought was action by the Board of Trustees in the nature of a legislative act. It is settled that, except as specifically provided by statute, an article 78 proceeding will not lie to compel a legislative body to act in a particular manner with respect to proposed legislation or to review the proceedings of a legislative body in connection with proposed legislation. (Matter of Larkin Co. v. Schwab, 242 N. Y. 330; Matter of Weers v. Whiton, 3 A D 2d 924.) Nor is the proceeding maintainable as one to secure an order in the nature of a mandamus order to compel the Village Board to hold a public hearing in connection with the petitioner’s application to the board for the change in the ordinance. Where the board determines to take no action with respect to such an application, I do not read the Village Law or local ordinance as requiring the holding by it of a public hearing.

Clearly, also, there is no basis for the request by the petitioner that this proceeding be transferred to the Appellate Division for determination. The decision of Matter of O’Brien (N. Y. L. J., Oct. 14, 1957, p. 14, col. 4) cited by petitioner is not in point.

Motion granted and proceeding dismissed, without costs.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Misc. 2d 488, 177 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porpora-v-keating-nysupct-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack