Opinion
July 22, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Slifkin, J.).
Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated by Justice Slifkin at Special Term. We would simply add that plaintiff is estopped from attacking the validity of the deed conveying the property. Having accepted the benefits resulting from an approval of a subdivision of its property, it cannot now seek to avoid the corresponding obligations ( see, City of Buffalo v. Balcom, 134 N.Y. 532; Matter of City of New York [ Klondike Realty Corp.], 80 A.D.2d 611; Brownsville Community Council v. Banco de Ponce, 567 F. Supp. 849, 857). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Bracken and O'Connor, JJ., concur.