IN RE: DEERPARK FARMS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: DEERPARK FARMS, LLC, appellant, v. AGRICULTURAL AND FARMLAND PROTECTION BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY, et al., respondents, Orange County Legislature, respondent-respondent.

Decided: February 23, 2010

STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, ARIEL E. BELEN, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ. David B. Gilbert, Middletown, N.Y., for appellant. David L. Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Michael Rabiet of counsel), for respondents Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board of Orange County and Wayne A. Decker, as Legislator for the 13th District of Orange County, and respondent-respondent Orange County Legislature. Drake, Loeb, Heller, Kennedy, Gogerty, Gaba & Rodd, PLLC, New Windsor, N.Y. (Adam L. Rodd and Jennifer E. Wright of counsel), for respondents Gary W. Flieger, as Supervisor of Town of Deerpark, and Town of Deerpark.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Orange County Legislature dated August 7, 2008, which adopted a resolution denying the petitioner's application to have certain property that it owned in the Town of Deerpark included in Agricultural District No. 2 in the County of Orange, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated March 4, 2009, as confirmed the determination, denied the petition insofar as asserted against the Orange County Legislature, and dismissed the proceeding insofar as asserted against the Orange County Legislature.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent-respondent.

 In reviewing an administrative determination, a court must ascertain whether there is a rational basis for the action in question, or whether it is arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321;  see also Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 12 N.Y.3d 424, 431, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813).   An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts (see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d at 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321).   Thus, “[i]f the court finds that the determination is supported by a rational basis, it must sustain the determination even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency” (Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 12 N.Y.3d at 431, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813;  see Kurcsics v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 451, 459, 426 N.Y.S.2d 454, 403 N.E.2d 159).   Consequently, “courts must defer to an administrative agency's rational interpretation of its own regulations in its area of expertise” (Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 12 N.Y.3d at 431l, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813).

Here, the petitioner failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the administrative determination made by the Orange County Legislature (hereinafter the Legislature) in adopting a resolution denying its application for the inclusion of its property in Agricultural District No. 2 in the County of Orange (hereinafter the district) lacked a rational basis or was arbitrary and capricious (see generally Matter of Stanton v. Town of Islip Dept. of Planning & Dev., 37 A.D.3d 473, 829 N.Y.S.2d 596).

 The rational, expressed concerns of the Legislature regarding the adverse impacts on the Town of Deerpark and upon the parcels of real property neighboring the real property owned by the petitioner if the application were approved were not sufficiently addressed or refuted by the petitioner.   Moreover, there was a rational basis to the concern expressed by the Legislature that, by including the petitioner's property in the district, the petitioner's projected increase in the number of hogs kept on the subject property would contravene the local zoning law and create a potential health hazard. Therefore, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Legislature's determination was rational, and not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d at 230-231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly confirmed the determination, denied the petition insofar as asserted against the Legislature, and dismissed the proceeding insofar as asserted against the Legislature.

Copied to clipboard