Trident Realty L.P. v. Planning Board of the Inc. Village of East Hampton, Suffolk County

248 A.D.2d 545, 669 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2573
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 16, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 545 (Trident Realty L.P. v. Planning Board of the Inc. Village of East Hampton, Suffolk County) 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
Trident Realty L.P. v. Planning Board of the Inc. Village of East Hampton, Suffolk County, 248 A.D.2d 545, 669 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In related proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two resolutions of the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of East Hampton, dated July 25,1996, and September 26,1996, respectively, which granted subdivision approvals to Hedgerow Associates, L.P., the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), entered March 3, 1997, in each proceeding, as dismissed the first proceeding as premature, and denied the petition and dismissed the second proceeding, upon a determination, inter alia, that the resolution of the Planning Board was not illegal.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the first petition as premature since the vote of the respondent Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of East Hampton (hereinafter the Planning Board) dated July 25, 1996, did not constitute a final determination (see, CPLR 7801 [1]). The second petition also was properly dismissed since the record does not support the petitioner’s contention that the resolution of the Planning Board dated September 26,1996, granting subdivision approval to Hedgerow Associates, L.P., was illegal.

The petitioner’s contention that the Planning Board lacked the authority to consider cluster developments is precluded from judicial review as that contention was not raised at the administrative level (see, Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833, 834; Matter of KLapak v Blum, 65 NY2d 670, 672; Matter of Buffolino v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 230 AD2d 794, 795).

Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Solano v. City of Mount Vernon
108 A.D.3d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Solutions Economics, LLC v. Long Island Power Authority
97 A.D.3d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Kearney v. Village of Cold Spring Zoning Board of Appeals
83 A.D.3d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Emrey Properties, Inc. v. Baranello
76 A.D.2d 1064 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Alfano v. Zoning Board of Appeals
74 A.D.3d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Ferraris v. Zoning Board of Appeals
7 A.D.3d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 A.D.2d 545, 669 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trident-realty-lp-v-planning-board-of-the-inc-village-of-east-hampton-nyappdiv-1998.