Mialto Realty, Inc. v. Town of Patterson
| Decision Date | 22 July 1985 |
| Citation | 491 N.Y.S.2d 825,112 A.D.2d 371 |
| Parties | In the Matter of MIALTO REALTY, INC., Respondent, v. The TOWN OF PATTERSON, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Raymond M. Maguire, Patterson, for appellants.
Keane & Beane, P.C., White Plains (Thomas F. Keane, Jr., and Richard L. O'Rourke, White Plains, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BROWN, J.P., and RUBIN, LAWRENCE and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Patterson, made August 9, 1984, which denied petitioner's application for site plan approval, the appeal, purportedly as a matter of right, is from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated October 29, 1984, which denied appellants' motion to dismiss the petition.
On the court's own motion, appellants' notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, said application is referred to Justice Rubin and leave to appeal is granted by Justice Rubin (CPLR 5701[b][1] ).
Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Planning Board of the Town of Patterson was without authority to deny petitioner's application for site plan approval on the ground that, under its interpretation of the local zoning ordinance, the proposed use was not permitted. "The power to interpret the provisions of the local zoning law is vested exclusively in the zoning board of appeals" (Rattner v. Planning Comm. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 103 A.D.2d 826, 478 N.Y.S.2d 63; see, Town Law, §§ 267, 274-a; 113 Hillside Ave. Corp. v. Village of Westbury, 27 A.D.2d 858, 278 N.Y.S.2d 558; Matter of Kalen, 248 App.Div. 777, 289 N.Y.S. 58). The local planning board shall not be permitted to disapprove a use under the guise of denying site plan approval (Matter of Gershowitz v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 69 A.D.2d 460, 419 N.Y.S.2d 976, revd on other grounds 52 N.Y.2d 763, 436 N.Y.S.2d 612, 417 N.E.2d 1000). Thus, Special Term properly denied appellants' motion to dismiss the petition.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth
...Board may not "disapprove a [permitted] use under the guise of denying site plan approval," Mialto Realty, Inc. v. Town of Patterson, 112 A.D.2d 371, 491 N.Y.S.2d 825, 825 (2d Dep't 1985) the Board is still vested with considerable discretion in deciding whether to approve or reject a propo......
-
Moriarty v. Planning Bd. of Village of Sloatsburg
...interpret the zoning ordinance is vested in the building inspector and the zoning board of appeals (see, Matter of Mialto Realty v. Town of Patterson, 112 A.D.2d 371, 491 N.Y.S.2d 825, appeal dismissed, 66 N.Y.2d 696, 496 N.Y.S.2d 424, 487 N.E.2d 281; Rattner v. Planning Comm. of Vil. of Pl......
-
Rembar v. Board of Appeals of the Village of East Hampton
...zoning board of appeals has the power to interpret the provisions of the local zoning ordinance or code (Matter of Mialto Realty v. Town of Patterson, 112 A.D.2d 371, 491 N.Y.S.2d 825 lv. dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 601, 496 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 490 N.E.2d 553; Rattner v. Planning Comm. of Vil. of Pleasa......
- Nicholas R.M., Matter of