# CP Vestal LLC v. Town of Vestal > New York Supreme Court, Broome County · May 8, 2025 · 2025 NY Slip Op 31659(U) URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11048857 ## Case - **Court:** New York Supreme Court, Broome County - **Decided:** May 8, 2025 - **Citations:** 2025 NY Slip Op 31659(U) - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion by Eugene D. Faughnan - **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11048857 ## Opinion text CP Vestal LLC v Town of Vestal 2025 NY Slip Op 31659(U) May 8, 2025 Supreme Court, Broome County Docket Number: Index No. EFCA2024003023 Judge: Eugene D. Faughnan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. At a Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York held in and for the Sixth Judicial District at the Broome County Courthouse, Binghamton, New York, on the · 3rrium placed on the law, which is a "pause" on the existing law. If the Petitioner established that Moratorium No. 4 was invalid, then there would be a basis to claim that the applications should be processed µnder the 2023 Solar Energy Law, but the Petitioner failed to make that showing. At present, there is only one law, with a temporary pause, and the "special facts" analysis is not applicable, but even if it was, Petitioners have not established that any "special facts" exception applies. Generally, the law as it exists at the time a decision is rendered is controlling. D'Agostino Bros. Enters. v. Vecchio, 13 A.D.3d 369 (2 nd Dept. 2004); McDonald's Corp. v. Elmsford, 156 AD2d 687. However, if there are "special facts" present that "indicate that the Board 'acted in bad faith and unduly delayed acting upon [the] application while the zoning law was changed'", then it is appropriate to consider ~e facts under the prior law. Matter of Cleary v. Bibbo, 241 AD2d 887, 888 (3 rd Dept. 1997), quoting Matter ofBibeau v. Village Clerk of Vil. of Tuxedo Park, 145 AD2d 478, 479 (2 nd Dept. 1988) (brackets in original). Petitioners seem to argue that if they can establish "special facts", then the Town should be compel~ed to process their applications under the 2023 Solar Energy Law. Even if the Court accepts that as a legal premise, the facts and allegations here do not give rise to any claim that the Board acted in bad faith. Instead, Respondents have demonstrated that almost immediately upon the new Board members taking their positions, the members were engaged in discussions about amending the Solar 13 [* 13] Energy Law, and that they did so due to concerns about the long-term goals and plans for the Town. The moratorium was not targeted toward these Petitioners or the result of bad faith. Nor was it unduly protracted or designed to prevent consideration of Petitioners' applications. The Petition does not allege that "the Board's actions were ' the product of malice, oppression, manipulation or corruption." Cleary v. Bibbo, 241 AD2d at 888, quoting Matter of Magee v. Rocco, 158 AD2d 53, 60 (3 rd Dept. 1990). While the Town Board may not have proceeded with the speed which Petitioners would have liked, and the moratorium further delays the processing of their applications, the Court cannot construe the actions of the Town Board as being dilatory or taken in bad faith. Thus, there is no basis to invoke a "special facts" exception in this matter. CONCLUSION Based on all the foregoing; the Court concludes that, although there have been multiple moratoria enacted relating to solar development in the Town of Vestal, there is no basis to invalidate the fourth moratorium embodied in Local Law No. l of 2024, under the circumstances in this case. Therefore, the demand for declaratory judgment that Local Law No. l of 2024 is invalid, unlawful, null and void is denied. Accordingly, the Petitioners applications are subject to the moratorium and the Petitioners applications cannot be processed at this time. Further, Petitioners have not established any "special facts" to support a writ of mandamus to compel the Town to process their Special Use Permit Applications under the 2023 Solar Energy Law. Accordingly, based on all the foregoing and after due deliberation, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Petition is DENIED AND DISMISSED. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION, ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT. Dated: May J , 2025 Binghamton, New York HO Supreme Court Justice 14 [* 14] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11048857. Public record. Not legal advice.