Town of Greenburgh v. Coughlin

73 A.D.2d 672, 423 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14526
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 24, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 73 A.D.2d 672 (Town of Greenburgh v. Coughlin) 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 Greenburgh v. Coughlin, 73 A.D.2d 672, 423 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, dated February 16, 1979, which, after a hearing, found that the establishment of a community residence facility at a contested location would be appropriate. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The sole issue to be resolved at a hearing to contest the appropriateness of the establishment of a community residence facility pursuant to section 41.34 of the Mental Hygiene Law is whether "the nature and character of the area in which the facility is to be based would be substantially altered as a result of establishment of the facility” (§ 41.34, subd [b], par [5]). Aside from conclusory allegations by petitioner’s residents and officials, no testimony adduced indicated that such alteration would occur. In contrast, respondents’ officials stated that in applying the criteria set forth in "Zoning For a New Kind of Family”, a publication of the Westchester County Department of Planning, they concluded that the proposed facility was sufficiently isolated from other facilities so as to avoid undue concentration and the resulting neighborhood change. Substantial evidence supported the commissioner’s determination. Although the decision was terse, we conclude that it was adequate since there were no facts which would indicate that substantial alteration of the community would occur. Mollen P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Town of Huntington v. Carpinello
50 A.D.3d 810 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Incorporated Village of Westbury v. Maul
263 A.D.2d 508 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Town of Pleasant Valley v. Wassaic Developmental Disabilities Services Office
92 A.D.2d 543 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Grasmere Homeowners' Ass'n v. Introne
84 A.D.2d 778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Incorporated Village of Old Field v. Introne
81 A.D.2d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Town of Pound Ridge v. Introne
81 A.D.2d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Town of Onondaga v. Introne
81 A.D.2d 750 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Town of Hempstead v. Commissioner
78 A.D.2d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Lake Hawthorne Homeowners Ass'n v. Coughlin
75 A.D.2d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 A.D.2d 672, 423 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-greenburgh-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1979.