Salvation Army v. Central Islip Fire District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salvation Army v. Central Islip Fire District

230 A.D.2d 841, 646 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8570

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

DecidedAugust 19, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 230 A.D.2d 841 (Salvation Army v. Central Islip Fire District) 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

Salvation Army v. Central Islip Fire District, 230 A.D.2d 841, 646 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a resolution of the respondent, made after a public hearing, by which it determined to acquire the petitioner’s property.

Adjudged that the petition is denied, with costs, and the proposed acquisition is allowed to proceed.

At the public hearing held in connection with the respondent’s resolution to acquire the petitioner’s property, the respondent established that the proposed acquisition would serve a public use (see, EDPL 203, 204). Specifically, the respondent, through statements made by one of its Commissioners at the public hearing, and exhibits submitted at that time, established that the acquisition of the petitioner’s parcel would provide much needed parking for firefighters who utilized the respondent’s firehouse, which is located just across the street from the petitioner’s parcel. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there was no foundation for this determination or that it was made in bad faith. Under such circumstances, the standard of limited judicial review of the respondent’s determination has been satisfied, and the proposed acquisition should be allowed to proceed (see, Matter of Waldo’s, Inc. v Village of Johnson City, 74 NY2d 718, 720-721; Matter of Jackson v New York Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400, 418; Greenwich Assocs. v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 152 AD2d 216, 218; Matter of Neptune Assocs. v Consolidated Edison Co., 125 AD2d 473).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit (see, Town Law § 176 [14]; Yonkers Racing Corp. v City of Yonkers, 858 F2d 855, cert denied 489 US 1077).

Bracken, J. 'P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a resolution of the respondent, made after a public hearing, by which it determined to acquire the petitioner’s property.

Adjudged that the petition is denied, with costs, and the proposed acquisition is allowed to proceed.

At the public hearing held in connection with the respondent’s resolution to acquire the petitioner’s property, the respondent established that the proposed acquisition would serve a public use (see, EDPL 203, 204). Specifically, the respondent, through statements made by one of its Commissioners at the public hearing, and exhibits submitted at that time, established that the acquisition of the petitioner’s parcel would provide much needed parking for firefighters who utilized the respondent’s firehouse, which is located just across the street from the petitioner’s parcel. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there was no foundation for this determination or that it was made in bad faith. Under such circumstances, the standard of limited judicial review of the respondent’s determination has been satisfied, and the proposed acquisition should be allowed to proceed (see, Matter of Waldo’s, Inc. v Village of Johnson City, 74 NY2d 718, 720-721; Matter of Jackson v New York Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400, 418; Greenwich Assocs. v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 152 AD2d 216, 218; Matter of Neptune Assocs. v Consolidated Edison Co., 125 AD2d 473).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit (see, Town Law § 176 [14]; Yonkers Racing Corp. v City of Yonkers, 858 F2d 855, cert denied 489 US 1077).

Bracken, J. 'P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D.2d 841, 646 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salvation-army-v-central-islip-fire-district-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack