Village of Wappingers Falls v. Maul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Village of Wappingers Falls v. Maul

306 A.D.2d 416, 762 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7116

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

DecidedJune 16, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 416 (Village of Wappingers Falls 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

Village of Wappingers Falls v. Maul, 306 A.D.2d 416, 762 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities dated December 20, 2001, which, after a hearing, rejected the petitioner’s objections to the establishment of a community residential facility for the disabled in the Village of Wappingers Falls.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities was supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the establishment of the subject community residential facility would result in an overconcentration of the same or similar facilities so as to substantially alter the nature and character of the area (see Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c]; Matter of Jennings v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227 [1997]; Matter of Town of Kent v Maul, 262 AD2d 495 [1999]; Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v Maul, 231 AD2d 580 [1996]; Matter of Town of Southeast v Maul, 225 AD2d 784 [1996]; Matter of Cedar Grove Civic Homeowners Assn. v Maul, 225 AD2d 618 [1996]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities dated December 20, 2001, which, after a hearing, rejected the petitioner’s objections to the establishment of a community residential facility for the disabled in the Village of Wappingers Falls.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities was supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the establishment of the subject community residential facility would result in an overconcentration of the same or similar facilities so as to substantially alter the nature and character of the area (see Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c]; Matter of Jennings v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227 [1997]; Matter of Town of Kent v Maul, 262 AD2d 495 [1999]; Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v Maul, 231 AD2d 580 [1996]; Matter of Town of Southeast v Maul, 225 AD2d 784 [1996]; Matter of Cedar Grove Civic Homeowners Assn. v Maul, 225 AD2d 618 [1996]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 416, 762 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-wappingers-falls-v-maul-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack