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: 24 Franklin Avenue R.E. Corp., et al., respondents, v. Town of Harrison, et al., appellants.
Argued-May 10, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, in the nature of mandamus to compel Robert Fitzsimmons, the Building Official of the Town/Village of Harrison, to issue certain building permits and action for a judgment declaring, among other things, that certain real property owned by the petitioners/plaintiffs is exempt from the provisions of Local Law No. 4 (2007) of the Town/Village of Harrison, the appeal, as limited by the appellants' brief, is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), entered August 11, 2009, as granted the petition and directed Robert Fitzsimmons, the Building Official of the Town/Village of Harrison, to issue the building permits.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action are severed.
The Supreme Court directed Robert Fitzsimmons, the Building Official of the Town/Village of Harrison, to issue certain building permits to the petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter the petitioners). The judgment in the instant matter was based in part on a prior judgment of the Supreme Court, entered September 16, 2008, in effect, declaring that Local Law No. 4 (2007) of the Town/Village of Harrison-which amended the zoning code of the Town/Village so as to preclude the issuance of the building permits as of right-was invalid. As determined by this Court in a related appeal (see Matter of 24 Franklin Ave. R.E. Corp. v Heaship, AD3d [decided herewith] ) the Supreme Court erred in rendering the judgment entered September 16, 2008, and we consequently are reversing that judgment. Accordingly, the petitioners failed to establish their clear legal right to the remedy of mandamus (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 160; Matter of Pitt v. Walsh, 69 AD3d 860, 861), and the Supreme Court should have denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and severed the causes of action seeking declaratory relief.
DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, BELEN and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
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: 2009-08343 (Index No. 4101 /09)
Decided: June 08, 2010
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)