We're Associates Co. v. Bear
| Decision Date | 26 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,2 |
| Parties | , 272 N.E.2d 338 Application of WE'RE ASSOCIATES COMPANY, Respondent, v. Franklin BEAR, Chairman, et al., constituting the Nassau County Planning Commission, Appellants. In the Matter of the TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, Respondent, v. Franklin BEAR et al., Constituting the Nassau County Planning Commission, Appellants. Proceeding |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 35 A.D.2d 846, 317 N.Y.S.2d 59.
Joseph Jaspan, Mineola (F. Stuart Darrow, Mineola, of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Sprague, Dwyer, Aspland & Tobin, Mineola, for petitioner in Proceeding no. 1.
Francis F. Doran, Manhasset (Gino Papa, Mineola, of counsel), for Town of North Hempstead.
Pratt, Caemmerer & Cleary, Mineola, for amicus curiae.
Proceedings to annul determination of County Planning Commission disapproving change of zone adopted by Town Board. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division held that where Town Board overrode County Planning Commission's disapproval of change in zoning of property situated within 300 feet of town boundary, change of zone became final and binding and Planning Commission thereafter had neither right nor power to change veto. The County Planning Commission appealed.
In the Court of Appeals the Commission argued that the Commission's margin zoning powers had not been impaired by amendment to General Municipal Law.
Order affirmed, without costs, on the opinion at the Appellate division.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Bedford v. Village of Mount Kisco
...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, whether the 1961 amendment to the Westchester County Administrative Co......
-
208 East 30th Street Corp. v. Town of North Salem
...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 held that the Westchester County Administrative Code was contr......
-
Matter of Headriver, LLC. v. Town Board of Town of Riverhead
...review (see Farwood Holding Corp. v. Town Clerk of Town of Huntington, 47 A.D.2d 765; Matter of We're Assoc. v. Bear, 35 A.D.2d 846, affd 28 N.Y.2d 981; see also Sfouggatakis v. Suffolk County Planning Comm., 48 A.D.2d 885). However, in the instant case, the petitioner does not seek to join......
-
Town of Smithtown v. Howell
...county planning commission on the authority of 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. The order should be affirmed, but only for limited reasons. The county planning commission disapproval was ineffective fo......