From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vitiello v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1998
255 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 23, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondent Action Redi-Mix Corp., the cross motion is denied, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent of declaring that City of Yonkers General Ordinance No. 10-1997 was not legally enacted and that any building permit issued thereunder is invalid, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchestor County, for determination of that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment on their demand for permanent injunctive relief.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant Action Redi-Mix Corp. (hereinafter Redi-Mix), the appeal is not academic because its concrete plant is fully constructed and operational. The plaintiffs promptly moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order at the commencement of this lawsuit before any construction had begun. The temporary restraining order was denied, and the court never ruled on the preliminary injunction. When Redi-Mix subsequently obtained permission from the Department of Health to begin construction, the plaintiffs immediately moved in this Court for a preliminary injunction. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs did all they could do to timely safeguard their interests, and Redi-Mix was put on notice that if it proceeded with construction, it would be at its own risk ( see, Matter of Watch Hill Homeowners Assn. v. Town Bd., 226 A.D.2d 1031).

Furthermore, the plaintiffs correctly contend that City of Yonkers General Ordinance No. 10-1997, which approved a change in zone for certain property leased to Redi-Mix, was enacted in contravention of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]). The purpose of SEQRA is to ensure that either an Environmental Impact Statement or a determination of environmental nonsignificance is prepared and available at the time a proposed action is approved ( see, King v. Saratoga County Bd. of Supervisors, 89 N.Y.2d 341; Devitt v. Heimbach, 89 A.D.2d 920, affd 58 N.Y.2d 925; Matter of Tri-County Taxpayers Assn. v. Town Bd., 55 N.Y.2d 41). Here, the resolution which authorized the City Council of Yonkers (hereinafter City Council) to issue a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA was passed two months after the City Council adopted the rezoning ordinance. As the plaintiffs contend, the City Council's review of any environmental concerns relating to Redi-Mix's proposed construction of a concrete plant should have preceded any action by the Council to change the zoning ( see, Devitt v. Heimbach, supra). The City Council's attempted after-the-fact compliance was thus an empty exercise, which in effect rubber-stamped a decision that had already been made ( see, Matter of Tri-County Taxpayers Assn. v. Town Bd., supra; cf., King v. Saratoga County Bd. of Supervisors, supra).

Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vitiello v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1998
255 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Vitiello v. City of Yonkers

Case Details

Full title:FLORENCE VITIELLO et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF YONKERS et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 23, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 607

Citing Cases

Youngewirth v. Town of Ramapo Town Bd.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the petition and annulled the Town Board's determination…

Weeks Woodlands Ass'n, Inc. v. Dormitory Auth. of State

dismissed as moot an appeal from a judgment declaring that a contract for the sale of real property had been…