Rice v. Newburger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rice v. Newburger

272 A.D.2d 549, 708 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5839

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

DecidedMay 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 549 (Rice v. Newburger) 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

Rice v. Newburger, 272 A.D.2d 549, 708 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the appellant Superintendent of Highways for the Town of North Hempstead, dated October 6, 1998, which denied the petitioner’s application for a curb-cut permit, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated May 31, 1999, which granted the petition and denied the appellants’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the petitioner failed to show that the appellants’ denial of his curb-cut application was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see, Burger King Corp. v County of Suffolk, Dept. of Public Works, 121 AD2d 494; Token Carpentry v Hornik, 92 AD2d 868; see also, Matter of Syosset Indus. Bldrs. v Town of Oyster Bay Highway Dept. 24 AD2d 763). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 appellant Superintendent of Highways for the Town of North Hempstead, dated October 6, 1998, which denied the petitioner’s application for a curb-cut permit, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated May 31, 1999, which granted the petition and denied the appellants’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the petitioner failed to show that the appellants’ denial of his curb-cut application was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see, Burger King Corp. v County of Suffolk, Dept. of Public Works, 121 AD2d 494; Token Carpentry v Hornik, 92 AD2d 868; see also, Matter of Syosset Indus. Bldrs. v Town of Oyster Bay Highway Dept. 24 AD2d 763). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 549, 708 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-newburger-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack