Duke & Benedict, Inc. v. Town of Southeast
| Decision Date | 28 September 1998 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 8429 In the Matter of DUKE & BENEDICT, INC., et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF SOUTHEAST, Respondent-Respondent, Emgee Highlands, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent. |
John A. Porco, P.C., Carmel (Robert C. Lusardi, of counsel), for appellants.
Stephens, Hogan, Rossi & Borkowski, Brewster (Willis H. Stephens, Jr., James W. Borkowski, and David Simon, of counsel), for respondent-respondent.
Keane & Beane, P.C., White Plains (Richard L. O'Rourke, of counsel), for intervenor-respondent.
Before O'BRIEN, J.P., and SANTUCCI, JOY and FRIEDMANN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul and vacate the enactment by the respondent Town of Southeast of an amendment to the Town Zoning Code by resolution dated July 18, 1996, and the enactment of Local Laws, 1996, No. 4 of the Town of Southeast, which rezoned a certain parcel of property, the petitioners Duke & Benedict, Inc., and Benedict Dairy Farms appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated July 18, 1997, which dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the petitioners lacked standing.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The petitioners Duke & Benedict, Inc., and Benedict Dairy Farms (hereinafter collectively referred to as D & B) own property which adjoins on two sides a parcel of property owned by Emgee Highlands, Inc. (hereinafter Emgee). Emgee petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Southeast to rezone its property from "office professional", in which office and warehouse uses were permitted, to "highway commercial", for the purpose of developing a large retail store on the site.
The Town Board, as lead agency for purposes of review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art. 8, hereinafter SEQRA), issued a negative declaration with respect to the rezoning after a public hearing and approval by the Town Planning Board. The Town Board passed a resolution dated July 18, 1996, which granted Emgee's petition and amended the Town's Zoning Code. On September 19, 1996, the Town Board adopted Local Laws, 1996, No. 4 of the Town of Southeast, which rezoned Emgee's property. D & B then commenced this proceeding to annul and vacate the amendment of the Zoning Code and the Local Law on the ground that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at the potential environmental impacts of the rezoning and failed to follow certain statutory procedures in enacting the amendment and Local Law. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground that D & B lacked standing.
We conclude that the Supreme Court erred in determining that D & B lacked standing to bring this proceeding. "A party has standing in a land-use matter if it shows that it would suffer direct harm (i.e., injury in fact) that is in some way different from the public at large" (Matter of Lo Lordo v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Munsey Park, 202 A.D.2d 506, 609 N.Y.S.2d 22; see also, Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 774, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034). The owner of property near the site of a proposed project who alleges actual or potential noneconomic harm from the environmental impacts of the project risks harm that is different from that of the public at large, and therefore has standing (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 N.Y.2d 406, 515 N.Y.S.2d 418, 508 N.E.2d 130; Matter of Lo Lordo v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Munsey Park, supra; Matter of Heritage Co. of Massena v. Belanger, 191 A.D.2d 790, 594 N.Y.S.2d 388).
The Town Board contends that D & B's motives are solely economic because its petition to rezone a portion of its own property from residential to highway commercial was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sunrise Development, Inc. v. Town of Huntington
...statute. Stephens v. Gordon, 202 A.D.2d 437, 438, 610 N.Y.S.2d 531, 532 (2d Dep't 1994); see Duke & Benedict, Inc. v. Town of Southeast, 253 A.D.2d 877, 678 N.Y.S.2d 343, 344 (2d Dep't 1998). To show an injury in fact, a party seeking review under SEQRA "must specifically allege facts which......
-
In the Matter of James Agoglia v. Benepe
...Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 N.Y.2d 406, 414, 515 N.Y.S.2d 418, 508 N.E.2d 130; Matter of Duke & Benedict v. Town of Southeast, 253 A.D.2d 877, 678 N.Y.S.2d 343). However, we find that dismissal of many of the petitioner's claims was proper on alternative grounds un......
-
Avy v. Town of Amenia, 2004 NY Slip Op 50972(U) (NY 8/13/2004)
...of Lo Lordo v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Munsey Park, 202 A.D.2d 506, 506 609 N.Y.S.2d 22; Matter of Duke & Benedict, Inc. v. Town of Southeast, 253 A.D.2d 877, 678 N.Y.S.2d 343). In the present case, petitioners assert standing by reason of the proximity of their properties to the ......
-
Agoglia v. Benepe
...Sun-Brite Car Wash v. Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 N.Y.2d 406, 414, 515 N.Y.S.2d 418, 508 N.E.2d 130; Matter of Duke & Benedict v. Town of Southeast, 253 A.D.2d 877, 678 N.Y.S.2d 343). However, we find that dismissal of many of the petitioner's claims was proper on alternative grounds unde......
-
Unlocking the courthouse doors: removal of the "special harm" standing requirement under SEQRA.
...Mobil Oil Corp. v. Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 559 N.E.2d 641,644 (N.Y. 1990). But see Duke & Benedict, Inc. v. Town of Southeast, 678 N.Y.S.2d 343, 345 (2d Dep't App. Div. 1998) (holding that although allegations of economic harm alone will not support standing, an economic motive cou......
-
SEQRA: effective weapon, if used directed.
...the expertise of an agency, rather than to a court of general jurisdiction."). (16) In Duke & Benedict, Inc. v. Town of Southeast, 678 N.Y.S.2d 343, 345 (App. Div. 1998) a plaintiff was deemed to have standing after showing the potential for actual environmental harm. Id. The plaintiff ......