Opinion
October 17, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.).
We add that appellants' claims which challenge respondent's amendment to the development plan are time barred pursuant to CPLR 217 (Greystone Mgt. v Conciliation Appeals Bd., 62 N.Y.2d 763; Solnick v Whalen, 49 N.Y.2d 224). With respect to their equal protection claims, appellants have failed to demonstrate that a rational relationship between any burden imposed upon them and a legitimate State interest is lacking (Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v Ward, 470 U.S. 869, 881). Therefore, the wide latitude granted to the State to enact social or economic legislation (Cleburne v Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440) precludes a finding that burdens which may fall upon appellants, even if discriminatory, are arbitrary within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Allied Stores v Bowers, 358 U.S. 522, 527-528).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.