Panevan Corp. v. Town of Greenburgh
| Decision Date | 09 November 2016 |
| Parties | In the Matter of PANEVAN CORPORATION, et al., appellants, v. TOWN OF GREENBURGH, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
144 A.D.3d 806
40 N.Y.S.3d 530
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07327
In the Matter of PANEVAN CORPORATION, et al., appellants,
v.
TOWN OF GREENBURGH, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov. 9, 2016.
Turner & Turner, White Plains, NY (Frederick W. Turner of counsel), for appellants.
Timothy W. Lewis, Town Attorney, Greenburgh, NY (Edward M. Lieberman of counsel), for respondents Town of Greenburgh and Town of Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals.
Blancato Law Offices, P.C., Tarrytown, NY (Richard T. Blancato of counsel), for respondent Dimitri Ostashkin, doing business as 788 Central Park Avenue, LLC.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals dated June 20, 2013, which, after a hearing, granted the application of Dimitri Ostashkin, doing business as 788 Central Park Avenue, LLC, for area variances, and action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the Town of Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to issue two of those variances, the petitioners/plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), entered January 13, 2014, which, inter alia, granted the separate motions of the respondents/defendants to dismiss the petition/complaint on the ground of lack of standing, and denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding and action.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The petitioners/plaintiffs are the owners or tenants of a property on Central Park Avenue in the Town of Greenburgh. The El Dorado Diner is situated on that property (hereinafter the El Dorado property). The El Dorado property is adjacent to a property owned by Dimitri Ostashkin, doing business as 788 Central Park Avenue, LLC (hereinafter Ostashkin; hereinafter the subject property). The subject property was formerly occupied by a gas station
and a residence. In pursuit of a project he wanted to build on the subject property, Ostashkin sought area variances from the provisions of the 1980 Town of Greenburgh Zoning Ordinance (hereinafter the zoning ordinance), and the Town of Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter the Zoning Board) granted Ostashkin's application in part. The petitioners/plaintiffs commenced this hybrid proceeding and action to challenge the Zoning Board's determination. They contend, among other things, that there is inadequate parking in the area and that the Zoning Board's determination will have adverse impacts on traffic and parking conditions. Ostashkin moved, and the Town and the Zoning Board separately moved, to dismiss the petition/complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motions, and denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding and action, holding that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Warner v. Town of Kent Zoning Bd. of Appeals
-
Veteri v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Kent
...778, 573 N.E.2d 1034 ; see 159–MP Corp. v. CAB Bedford, LLC, 181 A.D.3d 758, 761, 122 N.Y.S.3d 59 ; Matter of Panevan Corp. v. Town of Greenburgh, 144 A.D.3d 806, 807, 40 N.Y.S.3d 530 ). "An allegation of close proximity may give rise to an inference of damage or injury that enables a nearb......
-
Melrose Credit Union v. City of N.Y.
...Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d at 774, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034 ; see Matter of Panevan Corp. v. Town of Greenburgh, 144 A.D.3d 806, 807, 40 N.Y.S.3d 530 ). The petitioner must also demonstrate that " ‘the injury asserted falls within the zone of interests or concerns sough......
-
Star Prop. Holding, LLC v. Town of Islip
...of Duke & Benedict v. Town of Southeast, 253 A.D.2d 877, 878–879, 678 N.Y.S.2d 343 ; cf. Matter of Panevan Corp. v. Town of Greenburgh, 144 A.D.3d 806, 807, 40 N.Y.S.3d 530 ). On the merits, we agree with the Supreme Court's rejection of the petitioners' claims regarding SEQRA violations. T......