McLaughlin v. Maddaloni (In re Shepherd)

• Decision Date: 27 February 2013
• Parties: In the Matter of Elizabeth SHEPHERD, et al., petitioners/plaintiffs–appellants. Philip McLaughlin, et al., petitioners/plaintiffs, v. Louis Maddaloni, et al., respondents/defendants–respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

103 A.D.3d 901
960 N.Y.S.2d 171
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 01275

In the Matter of Elizabeth SHEPHERD, et al., petitioners/plaintiffs–appellants.
Philip McLaughlin, et al., petitioners/plaintiffs,
v.
Louis Maddaloni, et al., respondents/defendants–respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Feb. 27, 2013.

[960 N.Y.S.2d 172]

Matthew R. Atkinson, Jackson Heights, N.Y., for petitioners/plaintiffs–appellants.

Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (Anthony S. Guardino and Rachel A. Scelfo of counsel), for respondents/defendants–respondents Louis Maddaloni and Laura Maddaloni.

Anthony B. Tohill, P.C., Riverhead, N.Y., for respondents/defendants–respondents Village of Head of The Harbor, Village of Head of The Harbor Planning Board, and Village of Head of The Harbor Zoning Board of Appeals.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

[103 A.D.3d 901]In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent/defendant Village of Head of the Harbor Planning Board dated January 11, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the application of the respondents/defendants Louis Maddaloni and Laura Maddaloni for site plan approval for the construction of a new single-family residence, and action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that certain variances purportedly necessary for the construction project may not be issued as a matter of law, the petitioners/plaintiffs Elizabeth Shepherd and Peter Shepherd appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J.), dated September 6, 2011, as granted those branches of the motion of the respondents/defendants Village of Head of the Harbor, Village of Head of the Harbor Planning Board, and Village of Head of the Harbor Zoning Board of Appeals, and the separate motion of the respondents/defendants Louis Maddaloni and Laura Maddaloni, which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the second, third, and fourth causes of action insofar as asserted against each of them.

[960 N.Y.S.2d 173]

ORDERED that the notice of appeal from so much of the order as granted those branches of the separate motions which were to dismiss the second and third causes of action is deemed to be [103 A.D.3d 902]an application for leave to appeal from those portions of the order, and leave to appeal from those portions of the order is granted ( seeCPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof granting those branches of the separate motions which were to dismiss the second cause of action, and substituting therefor provisions denying those branches of the separate motions; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, and the time for the respondents/defendants to serve and file an answer to the second cause of action is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order ( seeCPLR 7804[f] ).

Louis Maddaloni and Laura Maddaloni own a parcel of residential property abutting Stony Brook Harbor and located in the Village of Head of the Harbor (hereinafter the Village). In 2007, the Maddalonis submitted a site plan application to the Village for the demolition of the existing residence on the property and the construction of a new single-family residence with a pool and pool house. In accordance with the Code of the Village of Head of the Harbor (hereinafter the Village Code), the site plan application was reviewed by the Joint Village Coastal Management Commission (hereinafter the JCC), a body created by the Village and the Village of Nissequogue to review municipal actions for consistency with their adopted Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (hereinafter LWRP) ( see Village Code §§ 81–1, 81–36). The JCC, acting in an advisory capacity ( see Village Code § 81–18), found that the site plan was inconsistent with the LWRP.

The Village Planning Board, the agency responsible for making a finding as to the site plan's consistency with the LWRP ( see Village Code §§ 81–14[A], 81–15[A] ), disagreed with the JCC's finding of inconsistency. Pursuant to Village Code § 81–30(H), this disagreement caused “the matter [to] be referred to the Village Board of Trustees for final resolution.” At a meeting on October 13, 2010, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution determining that the site plan was consistent with the LWRP.

Thereafter, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the Maddalonis' site plan application. At a meeting on January 11, 2011, the Planning Board granted site plan approval. By letter dated January 25, 2011, the Chairman of the Planning Board informed Louis Maddaloni that the Planning Board approved the site plan, subject to 11 enumerated conditions. A copy of the letter was filed with the Village Clerk on January 31, 2011.

[103 A.D.3d 903]On March 10, 2011, three neighbors who own property adjacent to or across the street from the Maddalonis' property, and Elizabeth Shepherd and Peter Shepherd, who reside one half mile away from the Maddalonis on property located on Stony Brook Harbor, commenced this hybrid proceeding and action, among other things, to review the Planning Board's determination to grant site plan approval. The petitioners/plaintiffs alleged, in their second cause of action, that the site plan approval was arbitrary and capricious because the proposed construction project violated Village Code provisions concerning setback requirements and vegetation-clearing limitations. In their third cause of action, they challenged the finding of consistency

[960 N.Y.S.2d 174]

with the LWRP. As a fourth cause of action, they sought a judgment declaring that the Maddalonis were not entitled to certain variances...