Southern Dutchess Country Club v. Town Board

25 A.D.2d 866, 270 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4244
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 16, 1966
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 866 (Southern Dutchess Country Club v. Town 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
Southern Dutchess Country Club v. Town Board, 25 A.D.2d 866, 270 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Opinion

In a proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR, to annul a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Fishkill denying, without a hearing, petitioner’s application for zoning reclassification of its real property, the board appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered October 19, 1965, which granted the petition and directed the board to hold a public hearing with respect to the application. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and determination confirmed, without costs. No questions of fact were considered. Generally, the exercise of zoning powers is a legislative function not subject to review in an article 78 proceeding (Matter of Neddo v. Schrade, 270 N. Y. 97; Matter of Weers v. Whiton, 3 A D 2d 924; Homefield Assn. of Yonkers v. Frank, 273 App. Div. 788, affd. 298 N. Y. 524). Although the Zoning Ordinance of the town provides for a reference by the Town Board to the Planning Board of any proposed change in zoning, whether on motion of the Town Board or on petition, the step so provided is a part of the legislative function (cf. Ulmer Park Realty Co. v. City of New York, 267 App. Div. 291, 293; Matter of Gellis v. Clark, 32 Misc 2d 597; Matter of Pelham Jewish Center v. Board of Trustees, 9 Misc 2d 564, affd. 6 A D 2d 710). In our opinion, the provisions of the Town Law, read together with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, did not impose a mandatory duty on the Town Board to call a public [867]*867hearing whenever a petition for a zoning change is presented to it.

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Hampshire Recreation, LLC v. Village of Mamaroneck
2020 NY Slip Op 2062 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Structural Technology, Inc. v. Foley
56 A.D.2d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Wolff v. Town/Village of Harrison
30 A.D.3d 432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Society of New York Hospital v. Del Vecchio
123 A.D.2d 384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Kasper v. Town of Brookhaven
122 A.D.2d 200 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Norman v. Town Board of Town of Orangetown
118 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Amerada Hess Corp. v. Lefkowitz
82 A.D.2d 882 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Town of Lima v. Harper
55 A.D.2d 405 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 A.D.2d 866, 270 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-dutchess-country-club-v-town-board-nyappdiv-1966.