Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: DANIEL T. WARREN, PETITIONER-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF WEST SENECA, TOWN OF WEST SENECA, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF TOWN OF WEST SENECA AND CANISIUS HIGH SCHOOL OF BUFFALO, BY AND THROUGH FR. DAVID CIANCIMINO, S.J., AS ITS PRESIDENT, RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner-plaintiff (petitioner) commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination of respondent-defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of West Seneca (ZBA), which had dismissed for lack of standing his administrative appeal challenging the issuance of a building permit by respondent-defendant Code Enforcement Officer of the Town of West Seneca to respondent-defendant Canisius High School for the further development of student athletic facilities. Petitioner appeals from a judgment that, inter alia, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition-complaint. We affirm.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the ZBA properly determined that petitioner was not an aggrieved person pursuant to Town Law § 267-a (4) and, thus, lacked standing to prosecute an administrative appeal inasmuch as petitioner was not a party to the issuance of the building permit, nor an officer, department, board or bureau of the Town of West Seneca, and failed to establish that he “sustained special damage, different in kind and degree from the community generally” from the issuance of the permit (Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d 406, 413 [1987], rearg denied 70 NY2d 694 [1987]; see Matter of Nunnally v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of New Windsor, 217 AD3d 950, 952 [2d Dept 2023]; Matter of Hadland v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton, 94 AD3d 1001, 1001-1002 [2d Dept 2012]).
In light of our determination, we do not address petitioner's remaining contentions.
Entered: May 2, 2025
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 386
Decided: May 02, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)