Rattner v. Planning Commission of Village of Pleasantville

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation478 N.Y.S.2d 63,103 A.D.2d 826
Decision Date23 July 1984
PartiesMarshall RATTNER, et al., Respondents, v. The PLANNING COMMISSION OF the VILLAGE OF PLEASANTVILLE, et al., Appellants.

Page 63

478 N.Y.S.2d 63
103 A.D.2d 826
Marshall RATTNER, et al., Respondents,
v.
The PLANNING COMMISSION OF the VILLAGE OF PLEASANTVILLE, et
al., Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department.
July 23, 1984.

Wren & Martineau, Pleasantville (Paul A. Martineau, Pleasantville, of counsel), for appellants.

Charles V. Martabano, Mount Kisco (Calcagnini & Lichtenstein, George J. Calcagnini, Mount Kisco, of counsel), for respondents.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and GIBBONS, WEINSTEIN and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Commission of the Village of Pleasantville, which denied petitioners' application for site plan approval, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 25, 1983, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter to the planning commission for further proceedings.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Planning Commission of the Village of Pleasantville was without power to deny petitioners' application for approval of its site plan on the ground that the proposed use is in violation of the Village Zoning Law. The power to interpret the provisions of the local zoning law is vested exclusively in the Zoning Board of Appeals of the village (see Village Law, §§ 7-712, 7-725; 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.2d 58; cf. Matter of Gershowitz v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 69 A.D.2d 460, 473-474, 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). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of Special Term. We note that any determination made by an administrative official charged with the enforcement of local zoning laws, such as the Village Building Inspector, may be appealed by an officer, department, board or bureau of the village to the Village Zoning Board of Appeals (Village Law, § 7-712, subd. 2).

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Rattner v. Netburn, No. 88 Civ. 2080 (GLG).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 27 March 1989
    ...Village of Pleasantville, 110 A.D.2d 840, 487 N.Y.S.2d 873 (2d Dep't 1985); Rattner v. Planning Comm'n of the Village of Pleasantville, 103 A.D.2d 826, 478 N.Y.S.2d 63 (2d Dep't 2 One poll question, for example, read as follows: "Pleasantville spends large amounts of money in legal fees. Do......
  • Moriarty v. Planning Bd. of Village of Sloatsburg
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 2 September 1986
    ...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 Pleasantville, 103 A.D.2d 826, 478 N.Y.S.2d 63; 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.......
  • Rattner v. Planning Com'n of Village of Pleasantville, No. 1
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 13 December 1989
    ...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 On May 19, 1983, the Village Board of Trustees adopted a resolution directing the Village Attorney to prepare an application t......
  • Rembar v. Board of Appeals of the Village of East Hampton
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 20 March 1989
    ...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 Pleasantville, 103 A.D.2d 826, 478 N.Y.S.2d 63). The mere fact that an applicant applies for a variance with respect to proposed construction does not preclude the boar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Rattner v. Netburn, No. 88 Civ. 2080 (GLG).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 27 March 1989
    ...Village of Pleasantville, 110 A.D.2d 840, 487 N.Y.S.2d 873 (2d Dep't 1985); Rattner v. Planning Comm'n of the Village of Pleasantville, 103 A.D.2d 826, 478 N.Y.S.2d 63 (2d Dep't 2 One poll question, for example, read as follows: "Pleasantville spends large amounts of money in legal fees. Do......
  • Moriarty v. Planning Bd. of Village of Sloatsburg
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 2 September 1986
    ...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 Pleasantville, 103 A.D.2d 826, 478 N.Y.S.2d 63; 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.......
  • Rattner v. Planning Com'n of Village of Pleasantville, No. 1
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 13 December 1989
    ...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 On May 19, 1983, the Village Board of Trustees adopted a resolution directing the Village Attorney to prepare an application t......
  • Rembar v. Board of Appeals of the Village of East Hampton
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 20 March 1989
    ...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 Pleasantville, 103 A.D.2d 826, 478 N.Y.S.2d 63). The mere fact that an applicant applies for a variance with respect to proposed construction does not preclude the boar......
  • 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