Opinion
2018–02018 Index No. 1447/17
07-07-2021
In the Matter of LAWRENCE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, appellant, v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., respondents.
Minerva & D'Agostino, P.C., Valley Stream, N.Y. (Christopher G. Kirby of counsel), for appellant. Ryan, Brennan & Donnelly, LLP, Floral Park, N.Y. (John E. Ryan of counsel), and Nixon Peabody, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Laurie Styka Bloom of counsel), for respondents Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency, Arthur Nastre, John Ferretti, Jr., Eric Malette, Steven Raiser, Florestano Girardi, and William Hendrick. Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Donna–Marie Korth and Christopher P. Dooley of counsel), for respondents Lawrence Johnson Road, LLC, Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., and Raymour & Flanigan Properties, LLC.
Minerva & D'Agostino, P.C., Valley Stream, N.Y. (Christopher G. Kirby of counsel), for appellant.
Ryan, Brennan & Donnelly, LLP, Floral Park, N.Y. (John E. Ryan of counsel), and Nixon Peabody, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Laurie Styka Bloom of counsel), for respondents Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency, Arthur Nastre, John Ferretti, Jr., Eric Malette, Steven Raiser, Florestano Girardi, and William Hendrick.
Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Donna–Marie Korth and Christopher P. Dooley of counsel), for respondents Lawrence Johnson Road, LLC, Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., and Raymour & Flanigan Properties, LLC.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency dated January 31, 2017, which, after a hearing, approved the application of the respondents Lawrence Johnson Road, LLC, Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., and Raymour & Flanigan Properties, LLC, inter alia, for certain tax exemptions and tax abatement benefits, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Karen V. Murphy, J.), entered August 10, 2017. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, denied the first cause of action of the amended petition and dismissed that portion of the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The respondents Lawrence Johnson Road, LLC, Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., and Raymour & Flanigan Properties, LLC, applied to the Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency (hereinafter the IDA) for financial assistance, including certain tax exemptions and tax abatement benefits, in connection with their purchase of a warehouse in the Village of Lawrence. The petitioner, Lawrence Union Free School District (hereinafter the district), appeared at a public hearing to oppose the application. On January 31, 2017, the IDA resolved to grant the application.
The district thereafter commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review the IDA's determination to grant the application, asserting, in the first cause of action, that the determination was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. By judgment entered August 10, 2017, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied the first cause of action on the merits and dismissed that portion of the proceeding. The district appeals.
Judicial review of the IDA's determination is limited to whether there is a rational basis for it or whether it is arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR 7803[3] ; Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 12 N.Y.3d 424, 431, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813 ). "An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts" ( id. at 431, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813 ). Here, the IDA's determination based, in part, on a valuation of the property by the Nassau County Assessor, as was consistent with the IDA's prior practice, had a sound basis in reason and was not irrational (see Matter of Nearpass v. Seneca County Indus. Dev. Agency, 152 A.D.3d 1192, 1195, 60 N.Y.S.3d 732 ; Matter of Newman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Yorktown, 121 A.D.2d 543, 543, 503 N.Y.S.2d 601 ).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from.
CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, BARROS and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.