From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of White v. Inc. Village of Plandome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1993
190 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 22, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Colby, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the application to intervene. Intervention in proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 is permitted for "interested persons" (CPLR 7802 [d]) and is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see, Matter of Clinton v Summers, 144 A.D.2d 145; Matter of Elinor Homes Co. v St. Lawrence, 113 A.D.2d 25). The intervenors in this case are the persons who own the premises upon which the subject construction was performed, who obtained the challenged certificate of occupancy for the completed construction, and who will be directly affected by the outcome of this proceeding. Hence, they clearly are "interested persons" within the meaning of the statute, and the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting them to intervene in the proceeding (see, e.g., Matter of Elinor Homes Co. v St. Lawrence, supra). In this regard, the petitioner's claim that the intervention would result in confusion and delay is wholly unsubstantiated by the record and is patently unpersuasive.

Additionally, we agree with the Supreme Court's dismissal of this proceeding pursuant to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies (see generally, Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52, 57; Steinberg v Sea Gate Assn., 118 A.D.2d 558), inasmuch as the challenged determination was subject to review by the Village Board of Appeals (see, Village Law § 7-712; Matter of Rattner v Planning Commn., 156 A.D.2d 521; Engert v Phillips, 150 A.D.2d 752; Matter of Turner v Town of Grand Is. Bldg. Dept., 97 A.D.2d 980). Accordingly, the petitioner's failure to seek the appropriate administrative remedy bars the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see generally, Matter of Corcella v Seifert, 181 A.D.2d 677).

We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be factually and legally unpersuasive. Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of White v. Inc. Village of Plandome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1993
190 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of White v. Inc. Village of Plandome

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ADRIENNE WHITE, Appellant, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF…

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

Date published: Feb 22, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
593 N.Y.S.2d 881

Citing Cases

In the Matter of The Application of Suzanne Mccrory v. Vill. of Mamaroneck

“Intervention in proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 is permitted for interested persons' (CPLR 7802[d]…

Visentin v. Haldane Cent. School Dist.

the cases cited by the proposed intervenors in support of this motion to intervene are distinguishable,…