From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patterson Materials Corp. v. Town of Pawling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 27, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion to intervene is granted and the intervenors' proposed answer is deemed served.

The factual background of this case is set forth in Patterson Materials Corp. v Town of Pawling ( 221 A.D.2d 608 [decided herewith]).

Three proposed intervenors have sought leave to intervene as defendants. Two of the proposed intervenors are homeowner associations representing homeowners who are either adjacent or in close proximity to the parcel owned by the plaintiff in the Town of Pawling upon which the plaintiff seeks to conduct its mining operations. It is specifically alleged that the homeowners from one of these associations live in the "immediate vicinity" of the plaintiff's parcel and that the homeowners from the other association live in a neighborhood that is approximately one mile away. Additionally, the co-chair of one of the homeowners associations, who lives adjacent to the parcel in question, seeks to intervene in his individual capacity.

The Supreme Court denied the motion to intervene. We reverse. At issue in this declaratory judgment action is the validity of four local laws, one of which places severe restrictions on the plaintiff's mining operations. The proposed intervenors, as property owners either adjacent to or in close proximity to the parcel where the plaintiff's operations might take place, have made various claims concerning the deleterious effect surface mining will have on their property. Such allegations concern the noise, dust, and traffic that would result if mining were permitted on the parcel in question. Under such circumstances, the proposed intervenors have established a "real and substantial interest" in the outcome of the action and permissive intervention should have been allowed (see, CPLR 1013; Matter of Clinton v Summers, 144 A.D.2d 145; Kaplen v Town of Haverstraw, 105 A.D.2d 690; Matter of Village of Spring Val. v Village of Spring Val. Hous. Auth., 33 A.D.2d 1037; see also, Greenpoint Sav. Bank v McMann Enters., 212 A.D.2d 647). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Patterson Materials Corp. v. Town of Pawling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Patterson Materials Corp. v. Town of Pawling

Case Details

Full title:PATTERSON MATERIALS CORPORATION, Respondent, v. TOWN OF PAWLING, NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Nov 27, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
634 N.Y.S.2d 711

Citing Cases

Town of Southold v. Cross Sound Ferry Serv

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion when it granted leave to intervene to Southold…

Stevenson v. Bd. of Elections

Before turning to the legal merits of this proceeding, the Court first addresses Jung's motion to seek…