Town of Brighton v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Brighton v. State

124 A.D.2d 968, 508 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62278

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 968 (Town of Brighton v. State) 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

Town of Brighton v. State, 124 A.D.2d 968, 508 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62278 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: After a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5), the town challenged respondent’s determination approving establishment of an intermediate care facility for the mentally disabled located in a residential area of Brighton, New York. Following a hearing respondent concluded: "The evidence in the record does not support a finding that the establishment of the proposed facility, in conjunction with any existing facilities, would substantially alter the nature and character of the Clover Hills area.” We find that the Commissioner’s determination is amply supported by substantial evidence in the record, and we therefore confirm it (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181).

The town’s argument that the Commissioner’s decision is void because rendered 51 days after the hearing instead of within 30 days as required by statute is without merit. This time limit is directory, not mandatory (Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v Webb, 111 AD2d 760). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Memorandum: After a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5), the town challenged respondent’s determination approving establishment of an intermediate care facility for the mentally disabled located in a residential area of Brighton, New York. Following a hearing respondent concluded: "The evidence in the record does not support a finding that the establishment of the proposed facility, in conjunction with any existing facilities, would substantially alter the nature and character of the Clover Hills area.” We find that the Commissioner’s determination is amply supported by substantial evidence in the record, and we therefore confirm it (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181).

The town’s argument that the Commissioner’s decision is void because rendered 51 days after the hearing instead of within 30 days as required by statute is without merit. This time limit is directory, not mandatory (Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v Webb, 111 AD2d 760). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 968, 508 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-brighton-v-state-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack