Seeler v. Planning Board

53 A.D.2d 632, 384 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13340
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 7, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 632 (Seeler v. Planning Board) 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
Seeler v. Planning Board, 53 A.D.2d 632, 384 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to (1) review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton, dated September 25, 1974, which, after a hearing, gave final approval to respondent Green Maple Homes, Inc.’s, subdivision plan and (2) compel the said board to grant petitioners’ application for a subdivision waiver, (a) petitioners appeal from (i) so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 31, 1975, as affirmed the planning board’s denial of their subdivision waiver application and (ii) a further judgment of the same court, entered March 26, 1976, which, inter alia, dismissed the amended petition and (b) the planning board cross-appeals from so much of the judgment entered March 26, 1976 as fails "to grant that part of [its] cross-motion [which sought] to dismiss the Order to Show Cause of January 19, 1976 for lack of jurisdiction”. Judgment [633]*633entered July 31, 1975 affirmed insofar as appealed from, and judgment entered March 26, 1976 affirmed, with one bill of costs jointly to respondent-appellant and respondent. We hold that Special Term retained jurisdiction of the proceeding when it remanded the matter to the planning board for findings of fact; accordingly, petitioners were not required to commence a new article 78 proceeding to review these findings. We hold that the planning board’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ferruggia v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Warwick
233 A.D.2d 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 A.D.2d 632, 384 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seeler-v-planning-board-nyappdiv-1976.