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: CHAD ZIGENFUS, BERTON CANDEE, STEVE TRUDE AND HANS DAATSELAAR, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, v. TOWN OF COHOCTON TOWN BOARD AND BARON WINDS, LLC, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, petitioners appeal from a judgment that, inter alia, dismissed the amended petition and complaint insofar as it sought relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 and declared that respondent Town of Cohocton Town Board (Town Board) did not act unlawfully in enacting Local Law No. 4 of 2019, which amended the local zoning law to raise the maximum allowable height of wind turbines erected in the Town of Cohocton from 500 feet to 650 feet.
Petitioners contend that the Town Board acted improperly in enacting Local Law No. 4 because one of its voting members had a conflict of interest that required his recusal, and the Town Board could not invoke the rule of necessity to permit him to vote despite the conflict inasmuch as a quorum of the Town Board was available to vote. That contention differs from the contention raised by petitioners in their amended petition and complaint, i.e., that three of the five members of the Town Board were disqualified from voting by a conflict of interest, which would render a quorum unavailable. Petitioners’ contention is thus raised for the first time on appeal and is not properly before this Court (see Matter of Elmwood Vil. Charter Sch. v Buffalo City Sch. Dist., 195 AD3d 1542, 1543 [4th Dept 2021]; Matter of Majka v Utica City School Dist., 247 AD2d 845, 846 [4th Dept 1998]; see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [4th Dept 1994]). We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and conclude that they do not warrant modification or reversal of the judgment.
Entered: September 30, 2022
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 644
Decided: September 30, 2022
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)