# Currier v. Planning Board of Huntington

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · March 17, 1980 · 74 A.D.2d 872

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5838740

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Allen A. Currier v. Planning Board of the Town of Huntington, and Gerard S. Doyle, Intervening Third-Party
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** March 17, 1980
- **Citations:** 74 A.D.2d 872; 426 N.Y.S.2d 35; 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10653
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 29 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/5838740

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5838740. Public record. Not legal advice.