Town of Kent v. Maul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Kent v. Maul

262 A.D.2d 495, 692 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6613

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 495 (Town of Kent v. Maul) 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 Kent v. Maul, 262 A.D.2d 495, 692 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

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 December 31, 1997, which, after a hearing, overruled the petitioner’s objections to the establishment of a community residential facility at Lot #28, Deer Hill Road, in the Town of Kent, New York.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

While the notice sent by the respondents to the petitioner Town of Kent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (1), provided erroneous information as to the existence of other community residential facilities located within the Town, the Town was aware of the existence of the facilities. Moreover, both before the site-selection hearing, and at the hearing, the respondents informed the Town of the errors contained in the notice, and apprised the Town of the existence of all the facilities within the Town which the notice had failed to mention. In light of the foregoing, the Town failed to establish that it was prejudiced in its ability to prepare for the hearing, and the notice function was fully served notwithstanding the defect contained therein (see, Town of DeWitt v Surles, 187 AD2d 969, 970; Matter of Town of Brunswick v Webb, 145 AD2d 844, 845).

We further find that the Commissioner’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. The Town failed to demonstrate that the establishment of the subject community residential facility would result in an overconcentration of the same or similar facilities so as to substantially alter the nature and character of the area (see, Matter of Jennings v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227; Matter of Town of [496]*496Oyster Bay v Maul, 231 AD2d 580; Matter of Cedar Grove Civic Homeowners Assn. v Maul, 225 AD2d 618).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—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 December 31, 1997, which, after a hearing, overruled the petitioner’s objections to the establishment of a community residential facility at Lot #28, Deer Hill Road, in the Town of Kent, New York.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

While the notice sent by the respondents to the petitioner Town of Kent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (1), provided erroneous information as to the existence of other community residential facilities located within the Town, the Town was aware of the existence of the facilities. Moreover, both before the site-selection hearing, and at the hearing, the respondents informed the Town of the errors contained in the notice, and apprised the Town of the existence of all the facilities within the Town which the notice had failed to mention. In light of the foregoing, the Town failed to establish that it was prejudiced in its ability to prepare for the hearing, and the notice function was fully served notwithstanding the defect contained therein (see, Town of DeWitt v Surles, 187 AD2d 969, 970; Matter of Town of Brunswick v Webb, 145 AD2d 844, 845).

We further find that the Commissioner’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. The Town failed to demonstrate that the establishment of the subject community residential facility would result in an overconcentration of the same or similar facilities so as to substantially alter the nature and character of the area (see, Matter of Jennings v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227; Matter of Town of [496]*496Oyster Bay v Maul, 231 AD2d 580; Matter of Cedar Grove Civic Homeowners Assn. v Maul, 225 AD2d 618).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 495, 692 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-kent-v-maul-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack