Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Coeymans
| Decision Date | 10 November 2016 |
| Citation | 144 A.D.3d 1274,41 N.Y.S.3d 170,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07358 |
| Parties | In the Matter of HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATER, INC., et al., Appellants, v. TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF COEYMANS et al., Respondents, and Coeymans Recycling Center, LCC, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
144 A.D.3d 1274
41 N.Y.S.3d 170
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07358
In the Matter of HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATER, INC., et al., Appellants,
v.
TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF COEYMANS et al., Respondents,
and
Coeymans Recycling Center, LCC, et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov. 10, 2016.
Bowitch & Coffey, LLC, Albany (Gary Bowitch of counsel) and Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, PC, Glens Falls (John D. Wright of counsel), for appellants.
Donald Zee, PC, Albany (Andrew Brick of counsel), for Coeymans Recycling Center, LLC, respondent.
Rizzo & Kelley, Poughkeepsie (James P. Kelley of counsel), for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, respondent.
William J. Better, PC, Kinderhook (N. Daniel Reeder of counsel), for TCI Realty of NY, LLC, respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., LYNCH, ROSE, DEVINE and MULVEY, JJ.
McCARTHY, J.P.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDonough, J.), entered July 22, 2015 in Albany County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, granted certain respondents' motions to dismiss the petition/complaint.
In March 2014, respondent Town Board of the Town of Coeymans (hereinafter the Town Board) enacted Local Law No. 4, which reclassified the permitted use of nine contiguous
parcels from residential-agricultural use to industrial use. In September 2014, petitioners commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and action for declaratory judgment against
the Town Board and respondent Coeymans Recycling Center, LLC (hereinafter CRC), which had an interest in three of the affected parcels and had previously lobbied for those parcels to be rezoned to industrial use, seeking to annul Local Law No. 4 based on, among other things, allegations that the procedures used to adopt the ordinance violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act. CRC and the Town Board both moved to dismiss the petition/complaint on the basis that petitioners failed to join necessary parties, namely, the property owners of the other rezoned parcels whose property rights were affected by the ordinance. Supreme Court denied the motion but determined that the other property owners were necessary parties and ordered petitioners to serve those property owners with a notice of petition and petition.
On May 11, 2015, petitioners filed an amended petition/complaint that added as respondents the additional parcel owners (hereinafter the newly-added respondents). Thereafter, the Town Board and CRC, as well as several of the newly-added respondents, separately moved to dismiss petitioners' amended petition/complaint on the ground that the amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ortiz v. Venettozzi
...from any alleged bias ( see Matter of Malave v. Bedard, 153 A.D.3d 1536, 1536, 60 N.Y.S.3d 700 [2017] ; Matter of Medina v. Prack, 144 A.D.3d at 1274, 40 N.Y.S.3d 291 ). Petitioner's remaining arguments, to the extent that they are preserved for our review, have been examined and found to b......
-
Ullman v. Med. Liab. Mut. Ins. Co.
...by any party or by the court on its own motion" ( Matter of Hudson Riv. Sloop Clearwater, Inc. v. Town Bd. of the Town of Coeymans, 144 A.D.3d 1274, 1275, 41 N.Y.S.3d 170 [3d Dept. 2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Jim Ludtka Sporting Goods, Inc. v. City of Buffalo Sch......
- Medina v. Prack
-
Pasley v. Venettozzi
...the pills recovered were Viagra, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Medina v. Prack, 144 A.D.3d at 1274, 40 N.Y.S.3d 291; Matter of Weekes v. Prack, 129 A.D.3d at 1431, 10 N.Y.S.3d 762 ). Furthermore, we find no merit to petitioner's claim t......