From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Ramapo Homeowners Assn. v. Town, Ramapo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 2003
2 A.D.3d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-09750, 2002-09751.

Decided December 8, 2003.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo dated July 16, 2001, which, after a hearing, granted the application of Toyv Corp. for a change in zoning from single-family to multi-family dwellings, the petitioner appeals from (1) stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated March 20, 2002, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated September 10, 2002, which dismissed the proceeding.

Garlet, Garrison, Klein Zaretsky, LLP, (Norman I. Klein and Robert S. Getman of counsel), for appellant.

Michael L. Klein, (Janice Gittelman of counsel), for respondents Town of Ramapo, Planning and Zoning Board of the Town of Ramapo, Town Board of the Town of Ramapo, and Christopher P. St. Lawrence.

Rice Amon, (Terry Rice of counsel), for respondents Toyv Corp., Yaakov Zichron, Yonah, Inc., Lazer Grunhut, Edith Grunhut, Yechial Lebovits, Secor Homes, Ephraim Grossman, Hendel Grossman, Upstate Homestead Realty, Abraham Katz, Congregation of Yesod Haomuna, and American Friends of Kolal Oltzer Shass Canada, Inc.

Before: DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from an order in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and leave to appeal has not been granted (see CPLR 5701[b]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The determination of the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter the Town Board) to grant the application of Toyv Corp. for a change in zoning from single-family to multi-family dwellings was not arbitrary and capricious and did not constitute spot zoning ( see Matter of Town of Bedford v. Village of Mt. Kisco, 33 N.Y.2d 178; Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 N.Y. 115, 123; Matter of Miller v. Kozakiewicz, 289 A.D.2d 494; Matter of Cannon v. Murphy, 196 A.D.2d 498).

The petitioner failed to show that the Town Board violated Public Officers Law § 103(a), which provides that public business be performed in an open and public manner ( see Gordon v. Village of Monticello, 87 N.Y.2d 124; Matter of New York Univ. v. Whalen, 46 N.Y.2d 734, 735; Litz v. Town Board of Guilderland, 197 A.D.2d 825; Matter of Orange County Publications v. Council of the City of Newburgh, 60 A.D.2d 409, affd 45 N.Y.2d 947). The Town Board conducted two public hearings on the subject of the proposed zone change.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Ramapo Homeowners Assn. v. Town, Ramapo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 2003
2 A.D.3d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In re Ramapo Homeowners Assn. v. Town, Ramapo

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF THE RAMAPO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ETC., appellant, v…

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

Date published: Dec 8, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 907

Citing Cases

Professionals v. Town of Ramapo Zoning Bd. of Appeals

"The statute does not apply only to formal or regular meetings, but to any gathering or meeting of a quorum…

In the Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle

Contrary to the petitioners' contention, there were no environmentally-significant modifications made after…