MATTER OF KROLL v. Village of East Hampton
| Decision Date | 15 April 2002 |
| Citation | 293 A.D.2d 614,741 N.Y.S.2d 98 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of ALAN D. KROLL et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>VILLAGE OF EAST HAMPTON et al., Respondents, et al., Respondents. |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Village Law § 7-712-c (1) provides that the limitations period within which to file an appeal from a decision of a village zoning board of appeals is 30 days from the date it is filed in the Office of the Village Clerk. This statute of limitations bars the commencement of any challenge to a zoning board's decision after the 30-day period has run (see Matter of Kennedy v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Croton-on-Hudson, 78 NY2d 1083).
The petitioners allege in the amended petition that Palm Management Corp. (hereinafter Palm), on at least four occasions in 1980, 1982, 1994, and 1998, sought approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of East Hampton (hereinafter ZBA) for activities that in essence unlawfully modified, enhanced, or enlarged the nonconforming uses of the subject properties. The ZBA's last determination, dated February 13, 1998, granted Palm's application to pave over a grassy parcel of land that had been used for parking.
It is uncontroverted that the petitioners, who had personal knowledge of the various applications, and who had actively participated at the public hearings, oftentimes represented by counsel, failed to challenge any of the four ZBA determinations involved herein within the 30-day periods set forth in the Village Law. Accordingly, they are now time barred from seeking review of those determinations (see Matter of Crepeau v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Cambridge, 195 AD2d 919). The fact that the determinations contained conditions attached to the approvals did not extend the statute of limitations (see Matter of De Bellis v Luney, 128 AD2d 778).
It is clear, therefore, that regardless of how the petitioners characterize their proceeding or pleadings, once the statute of limitations had expired as to every determination they now seek to review, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition as time barred.
Moreover, the petitioners' claim against both the Board of Trustees and the Design Review Board of the Village of East Hampton must fail since the petition fails to allege any act or wrongdoing on their part (see Matter of Hlavac v Guido, 170 AD2d 679). In addition, to the extent that the petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leland v. Moran
...Young v. Town of Huntington, 121 A.D.2d 641, 642, 503 N.Y.S.2d 657 (2d Dep't 1986); see also Kroll v. Village of East Hampton, 293 A.D.2d 614, 615-16, 741 N.Y.S.2d 98 (2d Dep't 2002) (noting that enforcement of a village's zoning codes is "a discretionary act."); Rosendale v. Iuliano, No. 9......
-
Pacheco v. Serendensky
... ... , all of the district court's conclusions follow as a matter of logic if we were to accept, as the government urges, ... Real Property Located at Incline Village, 976 F.Supp. 1327, 1342-43 (D.Nev.1997). Although we ... ...
-
In the Matter of James Agoglia v. Benepe
...v. Berle, 85 A.D.2d 695, 696, 445 N.Y.S.2d 484, affd. 57 N.Y.2d 1042, 457 N.Y.S.2d 786, 444 N.E.2d 36; see Matter of Kroll v. Village of E. Hampton, 293 A.D.2d 614, 741 N.Y.S.2d 98; Matter of Dyno v. Village of Johnson City, 261 A.D.2d 783, 690 N.Y.S.2d 325). The remainder of the petition i......
-
Glyka Trans, LLC v. City of N.Y.
...nature of mandamus to compel" ( Matter of Saks v. Petosa, 184 A.D.2d 512, 513, 584 N.Y.S.2d 321 ; see Matter of Kroll v. Village of E. Hampton, 293 A.D.2d 614, 615–616, 741 N.Y.S.2d 98 ). We also agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the TLC did not act arbitrarily or capricious......