From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freundlich v. Town Board of Southampton

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 10, 1981
419 N.E.2d 342 (N.Y. 1981)

Opinion

Submitted January 6, 1981

Decided February 10, 1981

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, GEORGE J. ASPLAND, J.

Norman S. Abrams for appellants.

Charles T. Matthews and Stuyvesant Wainwright II for respondents.



MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division that the respondents violated the town ordinance by altering lot lines in an approved subdivision without following the mandated procedures. The lot lines on the revised plan under which the lots were to be sold were at variance with those on the first subdivision which was approved by the town planning board. It follows, therefore, that this attempted resubdivision is invalid (see Town of Southampton Rules and Regulations for Subdivision of Land, § 218, § 300 et seq.).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Freundlich v. Town Board of Southampton

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 10, 1981
419 N.E.2d 342 (N.Y. 1981)
Case details for

Freundlich v. Town Board of Southampton

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE FREUNDLICH et al., Respondents, v. TOWN BOARD OF SOUTHAMPTON et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 10, 1981

Citations

419 N.E.2d 342 (N.Y. 1981)
419 N.E.2d 342
437 N.Y.S.2d 664

Citing Cases

Matter of Bay View Pines Estates v. Wines

The Code does not provide a definition for the term resubdivision. In the case of Freundlich v. Town Bd. ( 52…

Voorheesville v. Tompkins Co.

Since it is undisputed that plaintiff did not intend to develop or further partition the parcel but only to…