Williamsburg Independent People, Inc. v. Tierney
This text of 91 A.D.3d 538 (Williamsburg Independent People, Inc. v. Tierney) 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.
Opinion
The court properly dismissed the petition seeking to compel respondent to present petitioner’s Request For Evaluation (RFE), since “there is no statutory requirement that [respondent] adhere to a particular procedure in determining whether to consider a property for designation” (Matter of Citizens Emergency Comm. to Preserve Preserv. v Tierney, 70 AD3d 576, 577 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 710 [2010]). Accordingly, the decision as to whether an RFE should be calendared is a discretionary action and thus mandamus to compel is not an available remedy. Moreover, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Landmarks Preservation Commission is not obligated under 63 RCNY 1-02 to hold a public hearing before declining to calendar a request for the property’s designation as a landmark (see Matter of Landmark West! v Burden, 15 AD3d 308, 309 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 713 [2005]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 32838(U).]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
91 A.D.3d 538, 938 N.Y.2d 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamsburg-independent-people-inc-v-tierney-nyappdiv-2012.