Astoria Landing, Inc. v. N.Y.C. Envtl. Control Bd.

5 Citing cases

  1. E & S Realty, LLC v. Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of Sands Point

    208 A.D.3d 1236 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    " ‘The doctrine of equitable estoppel is to be invoked sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances’ " ( Sanchez v. Jericho Sch. Dist., 180 A.D.3d 828, 830, 120 N.Y.S.3d 163, quoting Ceely v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 162 A.D.2d 492, 493, 556 N.Y.S.2d 694 ). " ‘[T]he mistaken or erroneous issuance of a permit does not estop a municipality from correcting errors, even where there are harsh results’ " ( Matter of Astoria Landing, Inc. v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd., 148 A.D.3d 1141, 1143, 50 N.Y.S.3d 448, quoting Matter of Westbury Laundromat, Inc. v. Mammina, 62 A.D.3d 888, 890, 879 N.Y.S.2d 188 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and the prior issuance of a building permit does not estop a municipality from enforcing its zoning laws (seeMatter of Parkview Assoc. v. City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274, 282, 525 N.Y.S.2d 176, 519 N.E.2d 1372 ).

  2. C & B Realty #3, LLC v. Loan

    208 A.D.3d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    Such "a vested right can be acquired when, pursuant to a legally issued permit, the landowner demonstrates a commitment to the purpose for which the permit was granted by effecting substantial changes and incurring substantial expenses to further the development" ( Town of Orangetown v. Magee, 88 N.Y.2d 41, 47, 643 N.Y.S.2d 21, 665 N.E.2d 1061 ; see Matter of Exeter Bldg. Corp. v. Town of Newburgh, 114 A.D.3d at 779, 980 N.Y.S.2d 154 ). However, "[v]ested rights cannot be acquired in reliance upon an invalid permit" ( Matter of Astoria Landing, Inc. v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd., 148 A.D.3d 1141, 1143, 50 N.Y.S.3d 448 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[T]he mistaken or erroneous issuance of a permit does not estop a municipality from correcting errors, even where there are harsh results" ( Matter of Parkview Assoc. v. City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274, 282, 525 N.Y.S.2d 176, 519 N.E.2d 1372 ; seeMatter of Astoria Landing, Inc. v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd., 148 A.D.3d at 1143, 50 N.Y.S.3d 448 ).

  3. Astoria Landing, Inc. v. Del Valle

    188 A.D.3d 1189 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    In August 2011, the DOB issued five notices of violation (hereinafter NOVs) to the petitioner in connection with the sign. In a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced by the petitioner to review a determination of the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York (hereinafter the ECB) which affirmed the determination of an administrative law judge (hereinafter the ALJ) sustaining two of the five NOVs, this Court affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding (seeMatter of Astoria Landing, Inc. v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd., 148 A.D.3d 1141, 50 N.Y.S.3d 448 [hereinafter Matter of Astoria Landing I ]). In Matter of Astoria Landing I, this Court determined that the ECB had a rational basis to affirm the ALJ's determination, inter alia, that the petitioner violated New York City Zoning Resolution § 22–32 for having an impermissible outdoor advertising sign in a residential district and, thus, the ECB's determination was not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

  4. People v. Zgonena

    61 Misc. 3d 134 (N.Y. App. Term 2018)   Cited 3 times

    v. Rivercross Tenants' Corp. , 70 NY2d 849, 852 [1987] ; see e.g.Town of N. Elba v. Grimditch , 131 AD3d 150, 157 [2015] ; People ex rel. Farren v. Williams , 263 AD2d 956, 956 [1999] ), and, in particular, " ‘for the purpose of ratifying an administrative error’ " ( Matter of Parkview Assoc. v. City of New York , 71 NY2d at 282, quoting Morley v. Arricale , 66 NY2d 665, 667 [1985] ; seeSullivan Farms IV, LLC v. Village of Wurtsboro , 134 AD3d 1275, 1277 [2015] ; Legal Aid Socy. v. City of New York , 242 AD2d 423, 426 [1997] ; see alsoGrishman v. City of New York , 183 AD2d 464, 466 [1992] ["the errors of law of employees and officers are not binding upon the city"] ). Thus, where a municipality has unreasonably delayed action to enforce a violation or even issued a permit in error, the municipality may not normally be estopped from correcting that error notwithstanding that "there are harsh results" ( Matter of Parkview Assoc. v. City of New York , 71 NY2d at 282 ; see e.g.Matter of Astoria Landing, Inc. v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd. , 148 AD3d 1141, 1143 [2017] ; Town of Southold v. Estate of Edson , 78 AD3d 816, 817 [2010] ; Matter of Westbury Laundromat, Inc. v. Mammina , 62 AD3d 888, 890 [2009] ). Among the reasons are that "as a matter of policy, [subjecting a governmental agency to the defense of estoppel] ... could easily result in large scale public fraud ... by improper collusions [from which] it would be very difficult for the public to protect itself" (Matter ofE.F.S. Ventures Corp. v. Foster , 71 NY2d 359, 370 [1988] [internal quotation marks omitted] ), that a municipality cannot "confer rights in contravention of the zoning laws" ( Matter of Parkview Assoc. v. City of New York , 71 NY2d at 282 ), and "that reasonable diligence would have readily uncovered for a good-faith inquirer" the existence of the violation (id. ; e.g. Matter ofClear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Windham , 9 AD3d 802, 804 [2004] ; Matter of Twin Town Little League v. Town of Poestenkill , 249 AD2d 811, 812 [1998] ).

  5. Pradeep Agarwal, Cpa, P.C. v. Bachu Law Firm, P.C.

    69 Misc. 3d 126 (N.Y. App. Term 2020)

    Therefore, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment. Defendant does not specifically challenge, on appeal, the part of the Civil Court's order which denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking to extend the time to answer pursuant to CPLR 2004, beyond seeking to vacate the default judgment (seeMatter of Astoria Landing, Inc. v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd. , 148 AD3d 1141, 1143 [2017] ; Iatauro v. St. John's Univ. , 295 AD2d 478, 744 [2002] ). In any event, any arguments regarding the court's denial of the motion to extend the time to answer have been rendered academic.