From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Brucia v. Planning Bd. of the Town

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 8, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Fierro, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The petitioners challenge the decision of the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the Board) to grant subdivision approval to two applicants located in the Cold Spring Hills section of the Town of Huntington. The Supreme Court determined that the record did not support the petitioners' contention that the Board's actions were arbitrary or contrary to law. We agree.

It is well settled that the reviewing court in a CPLR article 78 proceeding will not substitute its judgment for that of the Board or set the latter's determination aside unless it clearly appears to be arbitrary or contrary to law (see, Matter of Heller v. Kabcenell, 126 A.D.2d 728). In this case, the proposed subdivisions met all applicable zoning requirements and will not have a significant environmental impact on the surrounding area. While the petitioners claimed that the proposed subdivisions will not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, their vague conclusory allegation was insufficient to justify denial of the applications (see, Matter of Ronsvalle v. Blumenthal, 144 A.D.2d 766; Reed v. Planning Bd., 120 A.D.2d 510; Matter of Van Euclid Co. v. Sargent, 97 A.D.2d 913). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Brucia v. Planning Bd. of the Town

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Brucia v. Planning Bd. of the Town

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CHARLES BRUCIA et al., Appellants, v. PLANNING BOARD OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 8, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
549 N.Y.S.2d 757

Citing Cases

Unal v. Peterson

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The reviewing court in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR…

Thiermann v. Zoning Board of Appeals

In essence, this appeal concerns whether the ceiling in one-half of the petitioners' basement will be seven…