From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sabatini v. Inc. Village of Kensington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 2001
284 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued May 11, 2001.

June 4, 2001.

In an action, inter alia, in effect, to invalidate a building permit issued by the defendant Incorporated Village of Kensington to the defendants Peter Nikakis and Harriet Nikakis, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated March 17, 2000, which, among other things, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss their amended complaint and denied their cross motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated July 6, 2000, which denied their motion, in effect, for reargument.

Sabatini Associates, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Sharon A. Reich of counsel), for appellants.

Forchelli, Curto, Schwartz, Mineo, Carlino Cohn, LLP, Mineola, N Y (Janet M. Insardi and Peter R. Mineo of counsel), for respondent Incorporated Village of Kensington.

Ackerman, Levine, Cullen Brickman, LLP, Great Neck, N Y (James A. Bradley of counsel), for respondent Peter Nikakis and Harriet Nikakis.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN


ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated July 6, 2000, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated March 17, 2000 is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs failed to obtain administrative review of the determination of the building inspector of the defendant Incorporated Village of Kensington granting a building permit by the Village Zoning Board of Appeals (see, Village Law — 7-712-a). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the action on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies (see, Sloane v. Annunziato, 234 A.D.2d 281).

The plaintiffs' motion, characterized as one for reargument and renewal, was properly determined by the Supreme Court to be one for reargument (see, Piacentini v. Mineola Union Free School Dist., 279 A.D.2d 513. Accordingly, the appeal from the order denying that motion must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument (see, Piacentini v. Mineola Union Free School Dist., supra).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

KRAUSMAN, J.P., FLORIO, FEUERSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sabatini v. Inc. Village of Kensington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 2001
284 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Sabatini v. Inc. Village of Kensington

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD SABATINI, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF…

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

Date published: Jun 4, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
725 N.Y.S.2d 567

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Levine v. Town of Clarkstown

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the petitioners' third and fourth causes of action, alleging that the…

Gottlieb v. City of N.Y.

In this instance, petitioner admittedly never served the DEP with a copy of his exceptions, and thus, failed…