Town of Southeast v. Maul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Southeast v. Maul

225 A.D.2d 784, 640 N.Y.2d 183, 640 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3138

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 784 (Town of Southeast 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 Southeast v. Maul, 225 A.D.2d 784, 640 N.Y.2d 183, 640 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Commissioner’s determination, which rejected its objections to the establishment of a community residential facility at the location selected by the respondents State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities and Wassaic Developmental Disabilities Services Office is supported by substantial evidence (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c]; Matter of Town of Mount Pleasant v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 200 AD2d 576; Town of Ramapo v Webb, 137 AD2d 518, 519). The petitioner failed to proffer any concrete and convincing evidence that a community residential facility would result in an overconcentration of the same or similar facilities such that the nature and character of the area would [785]*785be altered (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c]; Matter of Paino v Webb, 152 AD2d 699, 700).

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

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Commissioner’s determination, which rejected its objections to the establishment of a community residential facility at the location selected by the respondents State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities and Wassaic Developmental Disabilities Services Office is supported by substantial evidence (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c]; Matter of Town of Mount Pleasant v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 200 AD2d 576; Town of Ramapo v Webb, 137 AD2d 518, 519). The petitioner failed to proffer any concrete and convincing evidence that a community residential facility would result in an overconcentration of the same or similar facilities such that the nature and character of the area would [785]*785be altered (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c]; Matter of Paino v Webb, 152 AD2d 699, 700).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 784, 640 N.Y.2d 183, 640 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-southeast-v-maul-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack