IN RE: Deborah KOPALD (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In two related hybrid proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to annul certain building permits issued by the respondent/defendant Town of Highlands New York, and actions for injunctive relief, the petitioner/plaintiff appeals from (1) an amended order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Robert A. Onofry, J.), dated February 7, 2020, and (2) an amended order and judgment (one paper) of the same court also dated February 7, 2020.  The first amended order and judgment, among other things, granted those branches of the separate motions of the respondent/defendant Town of Highlands New York and the respondents/defendants David Tonneson, Deborah Tonneson, and Jaidin Paisley–Tonneson (Kilner) which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition/complaint in the first proceeding/action insofar as asserted against each of them, denied the petition in the first proceeding/action, and dismissed the first proceeding/action.  The second amended order and judgment, inter alia, denied the petition in the second proceeding/action, dismissed the second proceeding/action, and precluded the petitioner/plaintiff from filing any further or additional actions concerning the respondents/defendants and the subject property without the prior written permission of the court.

ORDERED that the amended orders and judgments are affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In 2019, a building inspector of the respondent/defendant Town of Highlands New York issued certain building permits to the respondents/defendants David Tonneson, Deborah Tonneson, and Jaidin Paisley–Tonneson (Kilner) (hereinafter collectively the Tonnesons) for the construction of a modular home on certain real property (hereinafter the Tonneson property).  The petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter the petitioner) owns and resides on property adjacent to the Tonneson property.  The petitioner commenced these two related hybrid proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78, among other things, to annul the building permits, and actions to enjoin construction.  The Tonnesons and the Town separately moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f)to dismiss the petitions/complaints insofar as asserted against each of them.  In an amended order and judgment dated February 7, 2020, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted those branches of the separate motions, denied the petition in the first proceeding/action, and dismissed the first proceeding/action.  In a second amended order and judgment, also dated February 7, 2020, the court, among other things, denied the petition in the second proceeding/action, dismissed the second proceeding/action, and precluded the petitioner “from filing any further or additional actions concerning these Respondents and the subject property without the prior written permission of the Court.”  The petitioner appeals from both amended orders and judgments.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceedings/actions for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (see Young Men's Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 NY2d 371, 375;  Matter of Svatovic v. Town of Southold, 156 AD3d 893).  Further, the court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the petitioner from filing any further or additional actions concerning the Town or the Tonnesons and the Tonneson property without the prior written permission of the court (see Lew v. Sobel, 151 AD3d 954, 955;  Matter of Ram v. Hershowitz, 76 AD3d 1022, 1023).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

This Court, in its discretion, denies the request of the Town and of the Tonnesons for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in opposing this appeal (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1;  RG Remodeling, Inc. v. Greco, 231 AD3d 757).

BARROS, J.P., WAN, MCCORMACK and HOM, JJ., concur.