Young v. Town of Huntington

121 A.D.2d 641, 503 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58627
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 23, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 641 (Young v. Town of Huntington) 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
Young v. Town of Huntington, 121 A.D.2d 641, 503 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to comply with the zoning and building provisions of its town code, the petitioners appeal, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), dated August 31, 1983, which granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

[642]*642Order affirmed, with costs.

In this proceeding in the nature of mandamus, the petitioners, who are homeowners in a residential district adjoining an industrial district containing a municipal storage and repair garage, seek to compel the respondent, the Town of Huntington, to comply with the zoning and building provisions of its town code in the operation of the garage. They contend that since about 1975 the expansion and intensified use of the garage has caused increased noise, traffic and glare in their neighborhood.

Special Term properly dismissed the petition. It is well established that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which will lie only to enforce a clear legal right (see, Matter of City of Newburgh v Public Employment Relations Bd., 63 NY2d 793). It will not lie to compel performance of a discretionary duty by an administrative body, but only to compel performance of an act commanded to be performed by law and involving no exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Center v Moore, 52 NY2d 88). Regardless of whether certain of the conditions said to be existing at the garage may violate the zoning or building provision of the town code, the decision to enforce those codes rests in the discretion of the public officials charged with enforcement (see, Matter of Fried v Fox, 49 AD2d 877; Matter of Perazzo v Lindsay, 30 AD2d 179, affd 23 NY2d 764) and is not a proper subject for relief in the nature of mandamus. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of South Blooming Grove Fire Dist. v. Village of S. Blooming Grove
2025 NY Slip Op 00454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Hudson v. Town of Orchard Park Zoning Bd. of Appeals
194 N.Y.S.3d 649 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of New York City Yacht Club v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs.
2019 NY Slip Op 4097 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Willows Condominium Assn. v. Town of Greenburgh
2017 NY Slip Op 5961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
159-MP Corp. v. Cab Bedford, LLC
53 Misc. 3d 803 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
Rose Woods, LLC v. Weisman
85 A.D.3d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Schubert v. City of Rye
775 F. Supp. 2d 689 (S.D. New York, 2011)
Horowitz v. New York City Police Department
82 A.D.3d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Fortuna v. Prusinowski
22 Misc. 3d 974 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Church of Chosen v. City of Elmira
18 A.D.3d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Leland v. Moran
80 F. App'x 133 (Second Circuit, 2003)
Leland v. Moran
235 F. Supp. 2d 153 (N.D. New York, 2002)
Kroll v. Village of East Hampton
293 A.D.2d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Dyno v. Village of Johnson City
261 A.D.2d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Smith v. Board of Appeals
202 A.D.2d 674 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Saks v. Petosa
184 A.D.2d 512 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Manuli v. Hildenbrandt
144 A.D.2d 789 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D.2d 641, 503 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-town-of-huntington-nyappdiv-1986.