IN RE: Harbor Park Realty

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

IN RE: Harbor Park Realty, LLC, appellant, v. Paul Mandelik, etc., et al., respondents.

2012–10679 (Index No. 22611/11)

Decided: April 30, 2014

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. JOHN M. LEVENTHAL SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ. Andrew J. Levitt, Melville, N.Y., for appellant. Cindy Elan–Mangano, Town Attorney, Huntington, N.Y. (J. Edward Gathman, Jr., of counsel), for respondents Paul Mandelik, Jane Devine, Kathleen Casey, Dave Pennetta, David Walsdorf, Lynn Healy, and Leslie Cernava, constituting the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington, Town of Huntington, and Town of Huntington Department of Engineering Services. Murphy, Bartol & O'Brien, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin J. O'Brien and Diane K. Mendez of counsel), for respondents John Notaro, R.A., Notaro Grupp Associates, and 1033 Fort Salonga, LLC.

Argued—March 13, 2014

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington, dated June 15, 2011, which approved the site plan of the respondents John Notaro, R.A., Notaro Grupp Associates, 1033 Fort Salonga, LLC, and 1033 Fort Salonga Road, also known as Bottles & Bargains, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated September 7, 2012, which, upon a decision of the same court (Cohalan, J.) dated June 19, 2012, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

A local planning board has broad discretion in deciding applications for site-plan approvals, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the board's action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Hejna v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Amityville, 105 AD3d 846;  Matter of Kearney v. Kita, 62 AD3d 1000, 1001).   Here, the determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington had a rational basis, and was not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Hejna v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Amityville, 105 AD3d at 846;  Matter of Kearney v. Kita, 62 AD3d at 1002).

The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.

RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard