# Oyster Bay Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Town Board

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · March 3, 2003 · 303 A.D.2d 410

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6093784

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Oyster Bay Associates Limited Partnership v. Town Board of Town of Oyster Bay
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** March 3, 2003
- **Citations:** 303 A.D.2d 410; 755 N.Y.S.2d 671; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2123
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 3 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/6093784

## Opinion text

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay dated June 12, 2001, which denied the petitioners’ application for a special use permit, the appeal, by permission, is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated July 8, 2002, which vacated the determination and remitted the matter for farther proceedings.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants Birchwood Civic Association at Jericho, Inc., Debbi Hunter, and Warren Church.
Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the denial by the Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay (hereinafter the Town Board) of the petitioners’ application for a special use permit was arbitrary and capricious. There was insufficient evidence to support a *411 deviation from the initial SEQRA finding of the Town Environmental Quality Review Commission, which was in favor of the proposed project (see Matter of WEOK Broadcasting Corp. v Planning Bd. of Town of Lloyd, 79 NY2d 373, 384 [1992]; Matter of SCI Funeral Servs. of N. Y. v Planning Bd. of Town of Babylon, 277 AD2d 319, 320 [2000]; Matter of Ernalex Constr. Realty Corp. v Bellissimo, 256 AD2d 338, 340 [1998]). Further, the Supreme Court properly determined that the Town Board abused its discretion in failing to consider the petitioners’ offer of mitigation (see Matter of Merson v McNally, 90 NY2d 742, 753-754 [1997]; cf. Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400, 429-430 [1986]).
The appellants’ remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Florio, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6093784. Public record. Not legal advice.