Opinion
06-07-2017
In the Matter of Michael BRUNO, et al., appellants, v. VILLAGE OF TUXEDO PARK PLANNING BOARD, et al., respondents.
Balsamo, Byrne, Cipriani & Ellsworth, Suffern, NY (Richard M. Ellsworth of counsel), for appellants. Feerick Lynch MacCartney & Nugent, PLLC, South Nyack, NY (Brian D. Nugent of counsel), for respondents Village of Tuxedo Park Planning Board and John Ledwith. Elizabeth K. Cassidy, PLLC, Warwick, NY, for respondent CC Road Tuxedo Park, LLC.
Balsamo, Byrne, Cipriani & Ellsworth, Suffern, NY (Richard M. Ellsworth of counsel), for appellants.
Feerick Lynch MacCartney & Nugent, PLLC, South Nyack, NY (Brian D. Nugent of counsel), for respondents Village of Tuxedo Park Planning Board and John Ledwith.
Elizabeth K. Cassidy, PLLC, Warwick, NY, for respondent CC Road Tuxedo Park, LLC.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent Village of Tuxedo Park Planning Board dated November 5, 2014, granting site plan approval to the respondent CC Road Tuxedo Park, LLC, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated June 10, 2015, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
A local planning board has broad discretion in deciding applications for site-plan approvals, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the board's action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Hejna v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Amityville, 105 A.D.3d 846, 961 N.Y.S.2d 801 ; Matter of Kearney v. Kita, 62 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 879 N.Y.S.2d 584 ). Here, the determination of the Village of Tuxedo Park Planning Board had a rational basis, and was not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Harbor Park Realty, LLC v. Mandelik, 116 A.D.3d 1040, 983 N.Y.S.2d 899 ; Matter of Hejna v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Amityville, 105 A.D.3d at 846, 961 N.Y.S.2d 801 ; Matter of Kearney v. Kita, 62 A.D.3d at 1002, 879 N.Y.S.2d 584 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
DILLON, J.P., COHEN, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.