NY Appellate Courtroom Dismisses Problem to ZBA’s Grant of Particular Use Allow for Assisted Residing Facility for Lack of Standing and Res Judicata

This put up was authored by Tyler Doan, JD

Shelbourne, the possible purchaser of sure property within the City of Greenburgh, utilized to the City Board for a particular allow in relation to its proposed development of an assisted residing facility on the property they meant to buy. The native zoning ordinance authorizes the City Board to difficulty particular permits for the event of mentioned amenities throughout the zoning district as long as the mission complies with circumstances set forth within the Greenburgh Code. The City Board in the end accepted the particular allow. Petitioners commenced the lawsuit pursuant to CPLR article 78 to evaluation the City Board’s willpower in addition to a conditioned destructive declaration pursuant to the New York State Environmental High quality Evaluate Act (SEQRA). Respondents moved to dismiss the petition. The Supreme Courtroom granted the motions to dismiss the petition primarily based on the petitioners’ lack of standing and on the choice floor that the continuing was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The Appellate Courtroom said that “Underneath the doctrine of res judicata, a celebration might not litigate a declare the place a judgment on the deserves exists from a previous motion between the identical events involving the identical material” and that the rule applies not solely to claims really litigated however claims that might have been raised throughout mentioned litigation. The Courtroom decided that the department of the petition which was to evaluation the SEQRA willpower was correctly barred as a result of a earlier continuing involving the identical petitioners in addition to the ZBA the place the Supreme Courtroom had decided that the petitioner’s problem to the SEQRA willpower was time- barred.

The Appellate Courtroom additional reasoned that the petitioners lacked standing. The petitioners “didn’t allege any legally cognizable harm with respect to an anticipated enhance within the variety of emergency calls as a result of development of the proposed assisted residing facility . . .” The Courtroom decided that these considerations had been exterior the zone of pursuits that the Greenburgh Code sought to guard. Moreover, the Courtroom reasoned that the petitioners’ generalized allegations that the City Board’s willpower might end in a street security hazard for its emergency car had been conclusory and speculative, and unable to maintain standing.

The Appellate Courtroom affirmed the Supreme Courtroom’s determination and dismissed the petition.

Greenville Fireplace District v. City of Greenburgh, 2022 WL 468413 (NYAD 2 Dept. 2022)

Leave a Comment