Stoppelman v. Planning Board of Village of Scardale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stoppelman v. Planning Board of Village of Scardale

232 A.D.2d 571, 648 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10462

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 21, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Village of Scars-dale dated August 24, 1994, which denied the petitioners’ application for a wetlands permit to construct a fence, the Planning Board of the Village of Scarsdale and the intervenor, Allen Bachrach, appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered June 30, 1995, which, inter alia, annulled the determination, granted the petition, and directed that the permit be granted.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the petition is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The findings of the Planning Board of the Village of Scars-dale that construction of the fence "could negatively impact on the drainage to the natural wetlands in the area” and "could create an obstruction to the surface flow of storm water” were supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179; Matter of Andresen v State of N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 227 AD2d 617). The denial of the permit was not arbitrary and capricious (see generally, de St. Aubin v Flacke, 68 NY2d 66, 70). Accord[572] ingly, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding dismissed.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellants’ remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, 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 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Village of Scars-dale dated August 24, 1994, which denied the petitioners’ application for a wetlands permit to construct a fence, the Planning Board of the Village of Scarsdale and the intervenor, Allen Bachrach, appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered June 30, 1995, which, inter alia, annulled the determination, granted the petition, and directed that the permit be granted.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the petition is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The findings of the Planning Board of the Village of Scars-dale that construction of the fence "could negatively impact on the drainage to the natural wetlands in the area” and "could create an obstruction to the surface flow of storm water” were supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179; Matter of Andresen v State of N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 227 AD2d 617). The denial of the permit was not arbitrary and capricious (see generally, de St. Aubin v Flacke, 68 NY2d 66, 70). Accord[572] ingly, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding dismissed.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellants’ remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Stoppelman v. Planning Board of Village of Scardale, 232 A.D.2d 571, 648 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

232 A.D.2d 571 (Stoppelman v. Planning Board of Village of Scardale) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related