Hejna v. Planning Bd. of Vill. of Amityville
| Decision Date | 10 April 2013 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Angelika HEJNA, et al., appellants, v. PLANNING BOARD OF VILLAGE OF AMITYVILLE, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Richard G. Handler, Amityville, N.Y., for appellants.
Buzzell, Blanda & Visconti, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Joseph F. Buzzell and Nicole Blanda of counsel), for respondent JAMM Holding, Inc., doing business as Richmond Autobody.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Village of Amityville dated December 10, 2008, which, after a hearing, approved the site plan of the respondent JAMM Holding, Inc., doing business as Richmond Autobody, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated June 6, 2011, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
To the extent that certain notices of the public hearing before the Planning Board of the Village of Amityville (hereinafter the Planning Board) were deficient, such defects did not deprive the Planning Board of jurisdiction over the application and did not render its determination void ( see Matter of Fine Assoc. v. Board of Trustees of Vil. of Elmsford, 228 A.D.2d 437, 643 N.Y.S.2d 643;Matter of Cellular Tel. Co. v. Meyer, 200 A.D.2d 743, 607 N.Y.S.2d 81;Matter of Velez v. Board of Appeals of City of New Rochelle, 147 A.D.2d 648, 538 N.Y.S.2d 52). A local planning board has broad discretion in deciding applications for site-plan approvals, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the board's action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion ( see Matter of In–Towne Shopping Ctrs., Co. v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Brookhaven, 73 A.D.3d 925, 926, 901 N.Y.S.2d 331;Matter of Kearney v. Kita, 62 A.D.3d 1000, 879 N.Y.S.2d 584;Matter of Davies Farm, LLC v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 54 A.D.3d 757, 758, 864 N.Y.S.2d 84). Here, the Planning Board's determination had a rational basis, and was not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion ( see generally Matter of Kearney v. Kita, 62 A.D.3d at 1002, 879 N.Y.S.2d 584).
The petitioners' remaining contention need not be reached.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saint James Antiochian Orthodox Church v. Town of Hyde Park Planning Bd.
...action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Hejna v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Amityville, 105 A.D.3d 846, 846, 961 N.Y.S.2d 801 ; Matter of Kearney v. Kita, 62 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 879 N.Y.S.2d 584 ). Here, the determination of the Town of Hyde Park P......
-
Marcus v. Planning Bd. of the Vill. of Wesley Hills
...Antiochian Orthodox Church v. Town of Hyde Park Planning Bd., 132 A.D.3d 687, 688, 17 N.Y.S.3d 481 ; Matter of Hejna v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Amityville, 105 A.D.3d 846, 961 N.Y.S.2d 801 ). Village Code § 230–45 states that the Planning Board "shall not approve a site plan unless it shall......
-
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead
...Church v. Town of Hyde Park Planning Bd., 132 A.D.3d 687, 688, 17 N.Y.S.3d 481 ; Matter of Hejna v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Amityville, 105 A.D.3d 846, 961 N.Y.S.2d 801 ). Here, the determination of the BOA to vary the prior approval of the site plan had a rational basis, and was not illega......
-
Hejna v. Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of Amityville
...remaining contentions either need not be reached or are without merit. Motion by the respondent JAMM Holding, Inc., doing business[105 A.D.3d 846]as Richmond Autobody, to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 6, 2011, on the ground that it has be......