§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Exeter Building Corp., et al., Appellants,v.Town of Newburgh, et al., Respondents.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. Town of Orangetown v. Magee

    88 N.Y.2d 41 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 174 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "Building Inspector . . . implement[ed] Town Policy" where the zoning code "vest[ed] the Building Inspector, alone, with the authority to revoke building permits"

  2. In re Dandomar Co.

    86 A.D.3d 83 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 40 times

    No. 2009-06877. May 31, 2011. APPEAL from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (James D. Pagones, J.), entered June 25, 2009, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The order and judgment (1) granted respondents' motion to dismiss, as time-barred, a petition to review a determination of respondent Town Board authorizing the filing of a certificate of abandonment regarding a portion of a town road, to annul the certificate and to compel respondents to maintain

  3. Ellington Constr v. Zoning Bd.

    77 N.Y.2d 114 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 79 times
    Finding petitioner had vested right where town approved petitioner's plan and petitioner installed various improvements on the land prior to amendments to applicable zoning ordinance

  4. Matter of Pokoik v. Silsdorf

    40 N.Y.2d 769 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 113 times
    In Pokoik v. Silsdorf, 40 N.Y.2d 769, 390 N.Y.S.2d 49, 358 N.E.2d 874 (1976), Pokoik, the property owner, initially applied for a building permit to build an addition to his house.

  5. Glacial Aggregates v. Town of Yorkshire

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1375 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Glacial Aggregates, we reiterated that, although a mining permit is "`strong evidence of a manifestation of intent `"to continue that nonconforming use, it is "not `a prerequisite to establishing prior nonconforming use rights `" (Glacial Aggregates, 14 NY3d at 137-138, quoting Buffalo Crushed Stone, 13 NY3d at 101-102).

  6. Exeter Bldg. Corp. v. Town of Newburgh

    114 A.D.3d 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2014-02-13 In the Matter of EXETER BUILDING CORP., et al., petitioners/plaintiffs-respondents, v. TOWN OF NEWBURGH, et al., respondents/defendants-appellants. Dickover, Donnelly, Donovan and Biagi, LLP, Goshen, N.Y. (Michael H. Donnelly of counsel), for respondents/defendants-appellants. Burke, Miele & Golden, LLP, Goshen, N.Y. (Richard B. Golden of counsel), for petitioners/plaintiffs-respondents. WILLIAM F. MASTRO Dickover, Donnelly, Donovan and Biagi, LLP, Goshen, N.Y. (Michael H. Donnelly of

  7. In Mtr. of Sterngass v. Town Bd. of Clarkstown

    10 A.D.3d 402 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 9 times

    2002-06984, 2002-10411 Decided August 9, 2004. In related matters, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rezoning of the petitioners' properties from MF-3 to MF-1 null and void, and for a judgment declaring that the petitioners' proposed development of lot 28 is exempt from Clarkstown Town Code § 290-31 (D) requiring site plan approval, (1) the Town of Clarkstown, Town Board of the Town of Clarkstown, and Clarkstown Planning Board appeal from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper)

  8. Ellington Constr v. Zoning Bd.

    152 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)   Cited 18 times
    In Ellington Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of New Hempstead (152 AD2d 365, 372, 549), the Court took particular note that statements by courts to the effect that an amendment of a local zoning ordinance constitutes, ipso facto, a revocation of any building permit issued up to that time for a use or structure prohibited by the amendment, were contained in dicta.

  9. Town of Southampton v. Todem Homes, Inc.

    43 A.D.2d 593 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)

    November 26, 1973 In an action to enjoin defendant from proceeding with construction of a motel, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 13, 1972, which denied its motion for a preliminary injunction. Order reversed, without costs, motion granted and case remitted to Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Defendant received county and town approvals for the construction of the motel, respectively 14 and 12 days before the town ordinance

  10. Matter of Poczatek v. Zoning Board of Appeals

    26 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)   Cited 4 times

    June 13, 1966 In a proceeding under CPLR article 78 by property owners in the Town of Huntington to review and annul a determination of respondent Zoning Board of Appeals, permitting the respondent corporation to use certain premises for the outdoor storage of building cranes and to construct a building on the land for use in conjunction therewith, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 17, 1965, which dismissed their petition on the merits. Judgment