Barker Cent. S. v. N.C.I.D.A

11 Citing cases

  1. Nearpass v. Seneca Cnty. Indus. Dev. Agency

    53 Misc. 3d 737 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)

    To the extent petitioners seek a declaratory judgment, no such relief may be given, since the matters only involve the IDA's administrative determinations. Barker Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Niagara Cnty. IDA, 62 A.D.3d 1239, 1240, 877 N.Y.S.2d 813 (4th Dept.2009). Following respondents' motion to dismiss the petition alleging petitioners lacked standing, the court entered an order dismissing the fifth and seventh causes of action and otherwise denied the motion.

  2. Nearpass v. Seneca Cnty. Indus. Dev. Agency, Lago Resort & Casino, LLC

    152 A.D.3d 1192 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 7 times
    In Nearpass, the Seneca County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) granted tax abatement relief to a resort and casino.

    Moreover, there is no requirement in the Industrial Development Agency Act that a particular project be financially needy in order to qualify for assistance. An express purpose of the Act is "to actively promote, attract, encourage and develop recreation, economically sound commerce and industry" ( General Municipal Law § 852 ), a purpose which SCIDA rationally determined would be furthered by providing assistance to the subject project. We reject the position of petitioners that our decision in Matter of Barker Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Niagara County Indus. Dev. Agency, 62 A.D.3d 1239, 877 N.Y.S.2d 813 is controlling on the issue of financial necessity as a prerequisite for SCIDA financial assistance. In Barker, the Niagara County Industrial Development Agency's (NCIDA) Uniform Tax Exemption Policy (UTEP) specifically required companies seeking a tax exemption to show that the benefits obtained through such financial assistance were necessary to make the project for which tax exemption was sought economically feasible.

  3. Schachtler Stone Prods. v. Town of Marshall

    6:21-cv-001100 (AMN/MJK) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 3, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    . In doing so, the state court found “this purported hybrid declaratory judgment action and CPLR article 78 proceeding ‘is properly only a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78.'” Id. (citing Matter of Barker Cent. School Dist. v. Niagara County Indus. Dev. Agency, 62 A.D.3d 1239, 1240 (4th Dept. 2009)). Therefore, the state court did not ultimately “treat[] the prior proceeding as one” in which Plaintiffs could have sought the damages they seek here.

  4. Town of Somerset v. Niagara County Indus

    14 N.Y.3d 837 (N.Y. 2010)

    April 13, 2010. 4th Dept: 62 AD3d 1239. Appeals Withdrawn and Discontinued.

  5. In re Barker Cent. School Dist

    14 N.Y.3d 837 (N.Y. 2010)

    April 13, 2010. Appeal from the 4th Dept: 62 AD3d 1239. Appeals Withdrawn and Discontinued.

  6. In re Somerset

    13 N.Y.3d 706 (N.Y. 2009)

    Decided September 17, 2009. Appeal from the 4th Dept: 62 AD3d 1239. Motions for Leave to Appeal granted.

  7. In re Barker

    13 N.Y.3d 705 (N.Y. 2009)

    Decided September 17, 2009. Appeal from the 4th Dept: 62 AD3d 1239. Motions for Leave to Appeal granted.

  8. In re Barker Central School Dist

    13 N.Y.3d 776 (N.Y. 2009)

    Decided September 17, 2009. Reported below, 62 AD3d 1239. Motion by New York State Economic Development Council for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed, and for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted, three copies of the brief to be served and an original and 24 copies filed within 30 days.

  9. Schachtler Stone Prods. v. Town of Marshall

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 5652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    we reject respondents' contention in appeal No. 3 that we should nevertheless reach issues raised in the reargument motion. We also note that a declaratory judgment action is not an appropriate procedural vehicle for challenging respondents' administrative determinations and as a result this purported hybrid declaratory judgment action and CPLR article 78 proceeding "is properly only a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78" (Matter of Barker Cent. School Dist. v Niagara County Indus. Dev. Agency, 62 A.D.3d 1239, 1240 [4th Dept 2009]). We conclude that Supreme Court erred in making a declaration (see Matter of Destiny USA Dev., LLC v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 63 A.D.3d 1568, 1568 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 703 [2010]), and we therefore modify the judgment in appeal No. 1 accordingly.

  10. Destiny USA Development, LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

    63 A.D.3d 1568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 10 times

    The DEC and its Commissioner appeal from a judgment that, inter alia, annulled the determination of the DEC, "declared" tha t its promulgated "guidance" and "guide factors" were null and void and that its refusal to include the parcels in the BCP violated the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions, and ordered the DEC to include the "entire project site of DestiNY USA, including all of the 'Carousel Parcels' and all of the 'Oil City Parcels' in the BCP" ( Destiny USA Dev., LLC v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 19 Misc 3d 1144[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51161[U], *36 [2008]). We note at the outset that, because this is properly a CPLR article 78 proceeding, Supreme Court erred in making a declaration ( see generally Matter of Barker Cent. School Dist. v Niagara County Indus. Dev. Agency, 62 AD3d 1239). Contrary to the contention of respondents (hereafter, DEC), the court properly granted the petition.