Rattner v. Planning Com'n of Village of Pleasantville, No. 1

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtBefore BRACKEN
Citation548 N.Y.S.2d 943,156 A.D.2d 521
PartiesIn the Matter of Marshall RATTNER, et al., Petitioners, v. PLANNING COMMISSION OF the VILLAGE OF PLEASANTVILLE, et al., Respondents. (Matter) VILLAGE BOARD OF the VILLAGE OF PLEASANTVILLE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents, v. PLANNING COMMISSION OF the VILLAGE OF PLEASANTVILLE, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent, Marshall Rattner, et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants; Richard Kersten, et al., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. (Matter)
Decision Date13 December 1989
Docket NumberNo. 1,No. 2

Page 943

548 N.Y.S.2d 943
156 A.D.2d 521
In the Matter of Marshall RATTNER, et al., Petitioners,
v.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF the VILLAGE OF PLEASANTVILLE, et al.,
Respondents. (Matter No. 1)
VILLAGE BOARD OF the VILLAGE OF PLEASANTVILLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents,
v.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF the VILLAGE OF PLEASANTVILLE,
Defendant-Appellant-Respondent,
Marshall Rattner, et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants;
Richard Kersten, et al., Counterclaim
Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. (Matter No. 2)
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department.
Dec. 13, 1989.

Page 945

Golenbock and Barell, New York City (Arthur M. Handler, Robert S. Goodman and Brian J. Kearney, of counsel), and Burns and Burns, Chappaqua (Richard E. Burns, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants-respondents, defendant-appellant-respondent and counterclaim defendants-appellants-respondents.

Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill and LaBoon, New York City (David R. Kittay, of counsel), Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, New York City (John J. Walsh, of counsel), and Charles V. Martabano, Mount Kisco, for defendants-respondents-appellants.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and RUBIN, SPATT and SULLIVAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a consolidated proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the Planning Commission of the Village of Pleasantville to approve a site plan (Matter No. 1), and an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the proposed use of the premises in question is in violation of the local zoning ordinance (Matter No. 2), (1) the plaintiffs, the defendant Planning Commission of the Village of Pleasantville, and the counterclaim defendants in Matter No. 2 appeal (a), as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme [156 A.D.2d 522] Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), entered November 13, 1987, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Marshall Rattner, Marshall Rattner, Inc., and National Limousine Service, Inc., in Matter No. 2 which was to dismiss the thirteenth affirmative defense in their reply to those defendants' counterclaims, and (b), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered September 7, 1988, as granted the motion of the defendants Marshall Rattner, Marshall Rattner, Inc., and National Limousine Service, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for severance of the proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, and which denied their cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, and, inter alia, failed to compel further discovery, and (2) Marshall Rattner, Marshall Rattner, Inc., and National Limousine Service, Inc., cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the order entered November 13, 1987, as denied those branches of their motion which were to dismiss the twelfth affirmative defense and for leave to file a notice of claim nunc pro tunc for damages arising, inter alia, from the denial of their application for site plan approval.

ORDERED that the order entered November 13, 1987, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the motion of the defendants Marshall Rattner, Marshall Rattner, Inc., and National Limousine Service, Inc., which was to dismiss the thirteenth affirmative defense is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the order entered November 13, 1987, is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further

ORDERED that the order entered September 7, 1988, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Marshall Rattner, Marshall Rattner, Inc., and National Limousine Service, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Rattner parties) have been involved in protracted litigation with numerous administrative officials of the Village of Pleasantville (hereinafter referred to as the Village parties) stemming from a dispute over the propriety of parking commercial limousines on a lot located in a "RO-2" Medium Density Residential/Office District in the Village of Pleasantville. Marshall Rattner, Inc. (hereinafter the Rattner corporation) is the owner of the two contiguous properties known as 409 Manville Road and 423 Manville Road. The parcel located at 409 Manville Road is improved by a commercial office

Page 946

building. National [156 A.D.2d 523] Limousine Service, Inc. (hereinafter National) leased space in the office building and used the rear parking area for its limousines. Marshall Rattner is a principal shareholder of National and also operates an insurance business at 409 Manville Road. When the Rattner corporation purchased 423 Manville Road, the contract of sale gave the vendors a life tenancy in the residential home located on the parcel. Rattner proposed combining the parking area of the contiguous parcels to form a joint or common parking facility, servicing both the commercial and residential structures.

In September 1982 a site plan was submitted to the Planning Commission of the Village of Pleasantville and a revised plan to the Building Commissioner to use the unimproved portion of 423 Manville Road for the off-street parking of National's expanding fleet of commercial limousines. Rattner contended that the latter was an accessory use permitted in a "RO-2" Medium Density Residential/Office District. The then Village Building Inspector determined that the proposed use was legal and the Village Attorney concurred. Additionally, the Public Safety Commission and the Fire Department reviewed the site plan and had no objections. Nevertheless, by resolution dated December 1, 1982, the Planning Commission denied Rattner's application solely on the ground that the proposed use was in violation of the village zoning laws. Thereafter, Marshall Rattner and the Rattner corporation commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the Planning Commission's determination, contending that the Commission had exceeded its authority in denying the application for site plan approval. By judgment dated April 25, 1983, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the Planning Commission for further proceedings upon finding that the Commission had denied the application on an improper basis. The court noted that the Commission had usurped the function of the Building Inspector (an administrative official charged with enforcement of the local zoning laws) and the Zoning Board of Appeals (the board vested with exclusive power to interpret the provisions of the Village zoning law). This judgment was subsequently affirmed by this court (Rattner v. Planning Comm. of the Vil. of Pleasantville, 103 A.D.2d 826, 478 N.Y.S.2d 63).

On May 19, 1983, the Village Board of Trustees adopted a resolution directing the Village Attorney to prepare an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals to review the former Building Inspector's determination that the use was legal. The Planning Commission, acting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • Scott v. City of New Rochelle,
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 21 Mayo 2014
    ...The court in Tannenbaum also cited to the Second Department's holding in Matter of Rattner v. Planning Commn. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521, 526, 548 N.Y.S.2d 943 [2d Dept.1989], however, as the Fourth Department in Goodwin correctly notes, this case “held in relevant part that a......
  • Henneberger v. County of Nassau, No. 05-CV-3242 (JFB)(ARL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 6 Diciembre 2006
    ...the burden of demonstrating compliance with the notice of claim requirement. Id; see Rattner v. Planning Comm'n ofVill. of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521, 548 N.Y.S.2d 943 (N.Y.App.Div.1989). In this case, it is undisputed that plaintiffs (1) have failed to comply with any of these requireme......
  • Matthews v. City of N.Y., No. 10–CV–4991.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 5 Septiembre 2012
    ...with the Notice of Claim requirement.” Horvath, 423 F.Supp.2d at 423 (citing Rattner v. Planning Comm'n of Vill. of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521, 548 N.Y.S.2d 943, 948 (N.Y.App.Div.2d Dept.1989)). Because timely service of a Notice of Claim is “a condition precedent to commencement of a to......
  • Goodwin v. Pretorius
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 22 Marzo 2013
    ...dismissal of the state claims against [the individual defendants] ( see Matter of Rattner v. Planning Commn. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521, 526, 548 N.Y.S.2d 943 [1989],lv. dismissed75 N.Y.2d 897, 554 N.Y.S.2d 831, 553 N.E.2d 1341 [1990] )” ( id. at 358, 819 N.Y.S.2d 4). As noted......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • Scott v. City of New Rochelle,
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 21 Mayo 2014
    ...The court in Tannenbaum also cited to the Second Department's holding in Matter of Rattner v. Planning Commn. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521, 526, 548 N.Y.S.2d 943 [2d Dept.1989], however, as the Fourth Department in Goodwin correctly notes, this case “held in relevant part that a......
  • Henneberger v. County of Nassau, No. 05-CV-3242 (JFB)(ARL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 6 Diciembre 2006
    ...the burden of demonstrating compliance with the notice of claim requirement. Id; see Rattner v. Planning Comm'n ofVill. of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521, 548 N.Y.S.2d 943 (N.Y.App.Div.1989). In this case, it is undisputed that plaintiffs (1) have failed to comply with any of these requireme......
  • Matthews v. City of N.Y., No. 10–CV–4991.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 5 Septiembre 2012
    ...with the Notice of Claim requirement.” Horvath, 423 F.Supp.2d at 423 (citing Rattner v. Planning Comm'n of Vill. of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521, 548 N.Y.S.2d 943, 948 (N.Y.App.Div.2d Dept.1989)). Because timely service of a Notice of Claim is “a condition precedent to commencement of a to......
  • Goodwin v. Pretorius
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 22 Marzo 2013
    ...dismissal of the state claims against [the individual defendants] ( see Matter of Rattner v. Planning Commn. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521, 526, 548 N.Y.S.2d 943 [1989],lv. dismissed75 N.Y.2d 897, 554 N.Y.S.2d 831, 553 N.E.2d 1341 [1990] )” ( id. at 358, 819 N.Y.S.2d 4). As noted......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT