Tarantino v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tarantino v. Sullivan

202 A.D.2d 1060, 609 N.Y.S.2d 126

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 1060 (Tarantino v. Sullivan) 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

Tarantino v. Sullivan, 202 A.D.2d 1060, 609 N.Y.S.2d 126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition challenging the determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Brookhaven (Planning Board) to annul a recorded covenant affecting intervenor’s property. The Planning Board determined that it initially imposed the covenant as a regulatory device to insure appropriate municipal review and regulation of any further subdivision of the property and that the covenant had no further efficacy in view of intervenor’s application for a variance. That determination is supported by the record and is not arbitrary and capricious. There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that reversal is required because the Planning Board failed to set forth specific findings to support its determination. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Underwood, Jr., J.— Article 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition challenging the determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Brookhaven (Planning Board) to annul a recorded covenant affecting intervenor’s property. The Planning Board determined that it initially imposed the covenant as a regulatory device to insure appropriate municipal review and regulation of any further subdivision of the property and that the covenant had no further efficacy in view of intervenor’s application for a variance. That determination is supported by the record and is not arbitrary and capricious. There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that reversal is required because the Planning Board failed to set forth specific findings to support its determination. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Underwood, Jr., J.— Article 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 1060, 609 N.Y.S.2d 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarantino-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-1994.