Town of Oyster Bay v. Maul

247 A.D.2d 545, 669 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1432
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 17, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 545 (Town of Oyster Bay 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 Oyster Bay v. Maul, 247 A.D.2d 545, 669 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

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 August 27, 1996, which, after a hearing, rejected the petitioner’s objection to the establishment of a community residential facility for the disabled in the Town of Oyster Bay.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The petitioner contends that the determination in question should be annulled based on its claim that the proposed community residential facility would substantially alter the nature and character of the surrounding area, inter alia, by increasing foot and vehicle traffic. These concerns were properly rejected by the Commissioner since they are speculative and undocumented (see, Matter of Jennings v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227; Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v Maul, 231 AD2d 580; Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v Maul, 231 AD2d 579). The petitioner presented no concrete evidence that the establishment of the facility would alter the nature and character of the area.

As the determination was based upon the findings that there was a need for the facility and that there was not an overconcentration of similar facilities in the area, the determination was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious.

Miller, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Village of Port Chester v. Ayotte
34 A.D.3d 489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Toulon
292 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 545, 669 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-oyster-bay-v-maul-nyappdiv-1998.