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.
TOWN OF ISLIP, appellant, v. MODICA ASSOCIATES OF NY 122, LLC, et al., respondents.
In an action pursuant to Town Law § 268(2) for injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated June 19, 2006, which denied its motion, inter alia, to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from using certain real property as a marina or to dock a commercial excursion boat, and vacated a temporary restraining order.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To obtain preliminary injunctive relief based on a violation of its zoning ordinances, a town need not satisfy the traditional three-part test for injunctive relief, but is required “only [to] show that it has a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits and that the equities are balanced in its favor” (First Franklin Sq. Assoc. v. Franklin Sq. Prop. Account, 15 A.D.3d 529, 533, 790 N.Y.S.2d 527; see Town of Huntington v. Pierce Arrow Realty Corp., 216 A.D.2d 287, 288, 627 N.Y.S.2d 787; Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v. Jefferson Indoor Mar., 162 A.D.2d 434, 436, 556 N.Y.S.2d 150). To obtain relief, a town must “come forward with a strong prima facie showing that the defendants are violating its zoning ordinance” (Town of Oyster Bay v. Sodomsky, 154 A.D.2d 455, 455, 546 N.Y.S.2d 21; see Town of Oyster Bay v. Dyott, 246 A.D.2d 531, 666 N.Y.S.2d 930). Here, since the Town of Islip failed to make a strong prima facie showing that the use of the subject property as a marina was not a pre-existing nonconforming use, or that the proposed docking of a commercial excursion boat would impermissibly expand such nonconforming use, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the Town's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (see Town of Southampton v. Sendlewski, 156 A.D.2d 669, 670, 549 N.Y.S.2d 434; Town of Oyster Bay v. Sodomsky, 154 A.D.2d 455, 546 N.Y.S.2d 21; CPLR 4401).
Contrary to the Town's contention, the Supreme Court did not, in effect, award partial summary judgment to the defendants.
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.
Decided: November 07, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)