Opinion

Currier v. Planning Board of Huntington

  • 74 A.D.2d 872
  • 426 N.Y.S.2d 35
  • 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10653
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Mar 17, 1980
Status
Published
Cited by
29 cases
Authority
More cited than 93.2%

“Whether to approve or disapprove petitioners’ subdivision proposal was within the discretion of the Planning Board”

How later courts described this case

  • “Whether to approve or disapprove petitioners’ subdivision proposal was within the discretion of the Planning Board”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Huntington Town Planning Board, dated February 7, 1979, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied petitioners’ application for final approval of their subdivision plat, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered August 1, 1979, which (1) annulled the determination and (2) directed the planning board to grant final approval to said subdivision plat. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, planning board determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits. The planning board’s determination denying final approval to the Curriers’ subdivision plat on the basis of environmental factors has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see CPLR 7803, subds 3, 4). Prior to rendering its decision, the planning board was in receipt of three professional engineering reports submitted, respectively, by the Curriers, their immediate neighbors, and the town’s department of engineering. All three reports drew different conclusions as to the environmental impact of the Curriers’ proposed construction upon adjacent properties. Where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, it is the duty of the planning board to weigh the evidence and to exercise its discretion in approving or denying approval to a subdivision plat. The court will only substitute its judgment for that of the planning board when the board has abused its discretion or has acted arbitrarily or illegally (1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], § 15.09; Matter of Eckels v Murdock, 265 NY 545 ; Matter of Roth v Friedman, 51 AD2d 728 ). There has been no such abuse or arbitrary or illegal action in this case. Hopkins, J. P., Gibbons, Rabin and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.