Town of Oyster Bay v. Commissioner of State of New York Office of Mental Health

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Oyster Bay v. Commissioner of State of New York Office of Mental Health

112 A.D.2d 241, 491 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55985

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 8, 1985·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health, dated December 22, 1983, which, after a hearing, found that the establishment of a community residential facility at a contested location would be appropriate.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The Commissioner properly found that petitioner had failed [242]*242to sustain its burden of showing that the establishment of the proposed facility at the contested location would substantially alter the nature and character of the community pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5). The testimony of petitioner’s witnesses opposed to the location was based on mere speculation and failed to show, by evidence of a concrete and convincing nature, that any such change would occur (Grasmere Homeowners’ Assn. v Introne, 84 AD2d 778). The Commissioner’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

Furthermore, petitioner’s procedural objections are without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Kunzeman, 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 New York State Office of Mental Health, dated December 22, 1983, which, after a hearing, found that the establishment of a community residential facility at a contested location would be appropriate.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The Commissioner properly found that petitioner had failed [242]*242to sustain its burden of showing that the establishment of the proposed facility at the contested location would substantially alter the nature and character of the community pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5). The testimony of petitioner’s witnesses opposed to the location was based on mere speculation and failed to show, by evidence of a concrete and convincing nature, that any such change would occur (Grasmere Homeowners’ Assn. v Introne, 84 AD2d 778). The Commissioner’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

Furthermore, petitioner’s procedural objections are without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Town of Oyster Bay v. Commissioner of State of New York Office of Mental Health, 112 A.D.2d 241, 491 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

112 A.D.2d 241 (Town of Oyster Bay v. Commissioner of State of New York Office of Mental Health) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related