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: Mark KAMINSKY, appellant, et al., petitioner, v. VILLAGE OF BRIARCLIFF MANOR, etc., et al., respondents.
In a hybrid proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Village of Briarcliff Manor, dated August 12, 2003, which granted site plan/steep slope permit approval for the proposed construction of a single-family house on certain real property owned by Heather B. McVeigh, and an action for a judgment declaring, among other things, that certain restrictive covenants which allegedly limited and restricted construction along Ridgecrest Road are valid, the petitioner Mark Kaminsky appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBella, J.), entered April 23, 2004, which, inter alia, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a decretal paragraph declaring, inter alia, that certain restrictive covenants which allegedly limit and restrict construction along Ridgecrest Road are invalid; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The challenged resolution of the Planning Board of the Village of Briarcliff Manor has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition (see Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732; Matter of O'Connell v. Knowlton, 21 A.D.3d 1105, 803 N.Y.S.2d 599).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Since this is a hybrid proceeding and an action, seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment, we modify the judgment by adding thereto a decretal paragraph declaring, among other things, that certain restrictive covenants which allegedly limited and restricted construction along Ridgecrest Road are invalid (see Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 229 N.Y.S.2d 380, 183 N.E.2d 670, appeal dismissed 371 U.S. 74, 83 S.Ct. 177, 9 L.Ed.2d 163, cert. denied 371 U.S. 901, 83 S.Ct. 205, 9 L.Ed.2d 164).
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 14, 2005
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)