Matter of Kearney v. Kita
| Decision Date | 26 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2008-03765. |
| Citation | 879 N.Y.S.2d 584,62 A.D.3d 1000,2009 NY Slip Op 04238 |
| Parties | In the Matter of MARGARET A. KEARNEY, Respondent, v. RICHARD KITA et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
A local planning board has broad discretion in reaching its determination on applications such as the petitioner's, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Davies Farm, LLC v Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 54 AD3d 757, 758 [2008]; Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d 514, 515 [2008]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768 [2005]). The planning board's determination "should be sustained upon judicial review if it was not illegal, has a rational basis, and is not arbitrary and capricious" (Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d at 515; see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]; Matter of Rivero v Voelker, 38 AD3d 784, 785 [2007]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d at 772). When reviewing the determinations of a local planning board, "`courts consider substantial evidence only to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board's determination'" (Matter of Gallo v Rosell, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ostojic v. Gee
...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, 1001, 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 ). The cou......
-
Nicolai v. McLaughlin
...Shopping Ctrs., Co. v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Brookhaven, 73 A.D.3d 925, 926, 901 N.Y.S.2d 331, quoting Matter of Kearney v. Kita, 62 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 879 N.Y.S.2d 584 ; see Matter of Ostojic v. Gee, 130 A.D.3d 927, 928, 14 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; Matter of Kaywood Props., Ltd. v. Forte, 69 A......
-
Ramapo Pinnacle Props., LLC v. Vill. of Airmont Planning Bd.
...515, 859 N.Y.S.2d 675 ; see Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254 ; Matter of Kearney v. Kita, 62 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 879 N.Y.S.2d 584 ; Matter of Rivero v. Voelker, 38 A.D.3d 784, 785, 832 N.Y.S.2d 616 ; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 2......
-
Bagga v. Stanco
...and capricious ( see Matter of Fairway Manor, Inc. v. Bertinelli, 81 A.D.3d at 823, 916 N.Y.S.2d 630; Matter of Kearney v. Kita, 62 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 879 N.Y.S.2d 584). [934 N.Y.S.2d 495] “When reviewing the determinations of a local planning board, courts consider substantial evidence onl......