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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] be 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] be 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.

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

225 A.D.2d 784 (Town of Southeast v. Maul) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related