Village of Mamaroneck v. Barnum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Village of Mamaroneck v. Barnum

226 A.D.2d 733, 642 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4698

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

DecidedApril 29, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 733 (Village of Mamaroneck v. Barnum) 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

Village of Mamaroneck v. Barnum, 226 A.D.2d 733, 642 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to enjoin the holding of a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5) on a proposal by the respondent Westchester Jewish Community Services to establish a community residence for mentally retarded / developmentally disabled individuals, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (La Cava, J.), entered April 11,1995, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

A hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5) is not an "adjudicatory proceeding” as defined by State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (3). State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (3) and § 301 (3) define an adjudicatory proceeding as "any activity * * * before an agency * * * in which a determination of the legal rights * * * of named parties thereto is required by law to be made only on a record”. There is no requirement in the Mental Hygiene Law that the hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5) be conducted only on a record. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to enjoin the holding of such a hearing pending the promulgation of rules governing such hearings by the respondent New York [734]*734State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (see, Town of DeWitt v Surles, 187 AD2d 969). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to enjoin the holding of a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5) on a proposal by the respondent Westchester Jewish Community Services to establish a community residence for mentally retarded / developmentally disabled individuals, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (La Cava, J.), entered April 11,1995, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

A hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5) is not an "adjudicatory proceeding” as defined by State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (3). State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (3) and § 301 (3) define an adjudicatory proceeding as "any activity * * * before an agency * * * in which a determination of the legal rights * * * of named parties thereto is required by law to be made only on a record”. There is no requirement in the Mental Hygiene Law that the hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5) be conducted only on a record. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to enjoin the holding of such a hearing pending the promulgation of rules governing such hearings by the respondent New York [734]*734State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (see, Town of DeWitt v Surles, 187 AD2d 969). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 733, 642 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-mamaroneck-v-barnum-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack