We're Associates Co. v. Bear
| Decision Date | 30 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1,2,s. 1 |
| Citation | We're Associates Co. v. Bear, 317 N.Y.S.2d 59, 35 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970) |
| Parties | In the Matter of WE'RE ASSOCIATES COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Franklin BEAR, Chairman, et al., constituting the Nassau County PlanningCommission, Respondents. In the Matter of The TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, Petitioner, v. Franklin BEAR, Chairman, et al., constituting the Nassau County PlanningCommission, Respondents. Proceeding |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Sprague, Dwyer, Aspland & Tobin, Mineola, for petitioner, We're associates co.
Francis F. Doran, Town Atty., Manhasset, Town of North Hempstead, for petitioner, The Town of North Hempstead; William F. Norton, Jr., Robert P. Lynn, Jr., Manhasset, of counsel.
Morris H. Schneider, County Atty., Nassau County, Mineola, for respondents; David Schechter, Senior Deputy County Atty., Arthur V. Graseck, Jr., Deputy County Atty., of counsel.
Pratt, Caemmerer & Cleary, Mineola, for amicus curiae, Villages of Brookville, North Hills, Old Sestbury and Roslyn Harbor.
Before RABIN, Acting P.J., and HOPKINS, MUNDER, MARTUSCELLO and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Consolidated proceedings under article 78 of the CPLR to annul a determination of the Nassau County Planning Commission which disapproved a change of zone adopted by the Town Board of the Town of North Hempstead.
Determination annulled, on the law, without costs.
The subject property is located in an unincorporated area of the Town of North Hempstead; it abuts the Village of North Hills on one side and the Village of Lake Success on two other sides.
On June 9, 1969 the owners and the contract-vendee of the property filed an application in the office of North Hempstead's Town Clerk to change the zone of the property from Residence A to Business A to permit the erection of a four-story office building with suitable parking, screening and planting. On September 11, 1969, the application was submitted to the Nassau County Planning Commission for its review in accordance with the provisions of section 239-m of the General Municipal Law. On September 30, 1969, the Planning Commission disapproved the application. On December 8, 1969, revised plans were submitted to the Town Clerk and by him to the Planning Commission, which again disapproved the application on January 20, 1970. Thereafter, the Town Board held two public hearings for reconsideration of the resubmitted application for the change of zone and on March 31, 1970 it adopted a resolution changing the zoning of the subject parcel from Residence A to Business A; the resolution carried by a vote of a majority of the members plus one. On April 1, 1970, the Town Clerk forwarded to the Planning Commission a copy of this resolution. On May 7, 1970 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
MHANY Mgmt., Inc. v. Cnty. of Nassau
...or village legislative body can override by a vote of a majority plus one of such body's total membership." We're Assocs. Co. v. Bear, 35 A.D.2d 846, 317 N.Y.S.2d 59, 60 (1970) ("[S]ection 239–m does not give the Planning Commission an absolute veto power...."). Here, rather than objecting ......
-
Boraas v. Village of Belle Terre
...plaintiffs to apply to the Court of Appeals for an injunction pending appeal under Rule 8(a). * Cf. Matter of We're Associates Co. v. Bear, 2d Dept.1970, 35 A.D. 846, 317 N.Y.S.2d 59. ...
-
Town of Bedford v. Village of Mount Kisco
...Municipal Law, §§ 239--l, 239--m, 239--n). But the statements of a county planning board are merely advisory (Matter of We're Assoc. Co. v. Bear, 35 A.D.2d 846, 317 N.Y.S.2d 59, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 981, 323 N.Y.S.2d 838, 272 N.E.2d 338).3 I do not reach the question, for it is not raised, wheth......
-
208 East 30th Street Corp. v. Town of North Salem
...v. Goldin, 38 A.D.2d 267, 328 N.Y.S.2d 958), at least where no contrary intention is clearly indicated (see Matter of We're Assoc. Co. v. Bear, 35 A.D.2d 846, 317 N.Y.S.2d 59, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 981, 323 N.Y.S.2d 838, 272 N.E.2d 338). Thus, in Bloom v. Town Bd. of Town of Yorktown (supra ), we......