Hadland v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton
| Decision Date | 17 April 2012 |
| Citation | 942 N.Y.S.2d 361,94 A.D.3d 1001,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02877 |
| Parties | In the Matter of David P. HADLAND, appellant, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Esseks, Hefter & Angel, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (Stephen R. Angel, Anthony C. Pasca, and Lisa J. Ross of counsel), for appellant.
Tiffany S. Scarlato, Town Attorney, Southampton, N.Y. (Kathleen Murray of counsel), for respondents Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Southampton and Michael Benincasa, as Chief Building Inspector of Town of Southampton.
Bennett & Read, Southampton, N.Y. (John J. Bennett and Kimberly A. Judd of counsel), for respondents Kimco Development of Hampton Bays, Inc., and Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton dated November 5, 2009, which, after a hearing, determined that it was without jurisdiction to review the petitioner's application on the merits as he was not an aggrieved person pursuant to Town Law § 267–a(4), the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton properly determined that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person pursuant to Town Law § 267–a(4) because he failed to demonstrate any legally cognizable interest aside from increased business competition ( see Matter of Sun–Brite Car Wash v. Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 N.Y.2d 406, 415, 515 N.Y.S.2d 418, 508 N.E.2d 130; Matter of Friedman v. Town Clerk of Town of Hempstead, 62 A.D.3d 699, 700, 879 N.Y.S.2d 156; Matter of Tappan Cleaners v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, 57 A.D.3d 683, 684, 868 N.Y.S.2d 320). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding ( see CPLR 7803[3] ).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tilcon N.Y., Inc. v. Town of New Windsor
...of N. Hempstead, 69 N.Y.2d at 415, 515 N.Y.S.2d 418, 508 N.E.2d 130 ; Matter of Hadland v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton, 94 A.D.3d 1001, 1002, 942 N.Y.S.2d 361 ). With respect to its second cause of action, which alleges violation of the competitive bidding requirements of G......
-
Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach
... ... 2, 18; Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 278 A.D.2d 421, 423, 717 N.Y.S.2d 369, revd. on other grounds, 97 N.Y.2d 86, 735 ... ...
-
Petrello v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals
... ... obtained permission from the Planning Board of the Town of ... Southampton (“Planning Board”) to divide the ... property into smaller lots, ... of Appeals of Vill. of Sagaponack, ... 96 N.Y.S.3d 246 (N.Y.App.Div. 2019); Hadland v. Zoning ... Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton, 942 N.Y.S.2d 361 ... (N.Y.App.Div ... ...