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 SOUTHOLD, Plaintiff–Appellant, Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc., Intervenor Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC., Defendant–Appellant.
In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from operating a high-speed passenger-only ferry service until it seeks and obtains site plan approval, (1) the plaintiff Town of Southold and the defendant separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered August 6, 1997, which granted the motion by Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc., for leave to intervene as a plaintiff in the action, and (2) the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered November 14, 1997, as, inter alia, denied that branch of its motion which was for renewal of the prior order, and, upon granting that branch of its motion which was for clarification of the prior order, amended the prior order to deem the intervenor's complaint to be served.
ORDERED that the plaintiff's appeal from the order entered August 6, 1997, is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered August 6, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendant; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered November 14, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the intervenor is awarded one bill of costs, payable by the defendant.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion when it granted leave to intervene to Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. (hereinafter the intervenor), an organization representing neighboring homeowners who claim to have been adversely affected by the defendant's operation of a high-speed, passenger-only ferry service. The intervenor established that its members, some of whom suffered from an increase in noise, traffic, and air emissions on the streets upon which they reside, possessed a real and substantial interest in the outcome of this action (see, CPLR 1013; Patterson Materials Corp. v. Town of Pawling, 221 A.D.2d 609, 634 N.Y.S.2d 711; Matter of Clinton v. Summers, 144 A.D.2d 145, 534 N.Y.S.2d 473).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY 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.
Decided: December 14, 1998
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)