From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Paino v. Webb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 24, 1989
152 A.D.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

July 24, 1989


Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The party contesting the establishment of a community residence facility must show that it would result in a concentration of the same or similar facilities such that the nature and character of the area would be altered (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c] [5]; Matter of Town of Hempstead v Commissioner of State of N Y Off. of Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities, 121 A.D.2d 388). Such challenges may be sustained only when the evidence offered in opposition is concrete and of a convincing nature (see, Grasmere Homeowners' Assn. v Introne, 84 A.D.2d 778). The record before us does not show concrete and convincing evidence that such a detrimental alteration would occur (see, Town of Hempstead v Commissioner of State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities, supra, at 388). Moreover, the Commissioner's determination to the contrary was supported by substantial evidence (see, Town of Ramapo v Webb, 137 A.D.2d 518).

We further conclude that the record contains substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's finding that the alternative sites proposed by the petitioner for a community residential facility were not superior to the site selected by the sponsoring agency (see, Town of Ramapo v Webb, supra, at 518).

The petitioner's contention that the Commissioner's determination should be annulled because he failed to conduct a hearing within 15 days of the request therefor and to render a determination within 30 days of the hearing is meritless. This court has previously ruled that the time requirements set forth in Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5) are directory and not mandatory (see, Town of Pleasant Val. v Wassaic Developmental Disabilities Servs. Off., 92 A.D.2d 543). Furthermore, the petitioner was in no way prejudiced by the minor delay which occurred.

We have reviewed the petitioner's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Mangano, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Paino v. Webb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 24, 1989
152 A.D.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Matter of Paino v. Webb

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of IRENE PAINO, Individually and as Supervisor of the Town…

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

Date published: Jul 24, 1989

Citations

152 A.D.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
544 N.Y.S.2d 159

Citing Cases

William Ct. v. Mental Retardation

For an objectant to successfully prevail in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, it is necessary to show by…

Vill. of Port Chester v. Delaney

Contrary to the Village's contention, ABD complied with its statutory duty under Mental Hygiene Law §…