Spinelli v. Rieger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spinelli v. Rieger

112 A.D.2d 939

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

DecidedAugust 5, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 939 (Spinelli v. Rieger) 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

Spinelli v. Rieger, 112 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the intervenor, Louis Holder, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Willen, J.), dated May 30, 1984, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination granting, subject to certain conditions, petitioner Ronald Spinelli’s application for an order directing the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Babylon to approve his site plan for the construction of a local shopping center.

Order affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The intervenor has failed to demonstrate that Special Term misapprehended or overlooked any pertinent matters of law or fact (CPLR 2221; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567). In this connection, we note that the intervenor’s answer, which detailed his opposition to the site plan, was before the court and was taken into consideration by it in reaching its determination. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, 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, the intervenor, Louis Holder, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Willen, J.), dated May 30, 1984, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination granting, subject to certain conditions, petitioner Ronald Spinelli’s application for an order directing the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Babylon to approve his site plan for the construction of a local shopping center.

Order affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The intervenor has failed to demonstrate that Special Term misapprehended or overlooked any pertinent matters of law or fact (CPLR 2221; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567). In this connection, we note that the intervenor’s answer, which detailed his opposition to the site plan, was before the court and was taken into consideration by it in reaching its determination. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spinelli-v-rieger-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack