Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed dismissal of a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a zoning variance and building permit in the Town of Oyster Bay. The court held that the challenge to the variance was untimely under Town Law § 267-c and CPLR 217, and that the administrative appeal from the building permit was untimely under Town Law § 267-a(5)(b).
Holdings
- A CPLR article 78 challenge to the Zoning Board of Appeals' determination had to be commenced within 30 days after the determination was filed with the Town Clerk; because the determination was filed on July 18, 2012 and the proceeding was not commenced until June 13, 2013, the challenge was time-barred.
- The administrative appeal challenging the building permit was untimely because Town Law § 267-a(5)(b) required the appeal to be taken within 60 days after filing of the administrative official's determination, and petitioners filed their appeal more than 60 days after the permit was issued.
Questions Presented
- Whether the petitioners' CPLR article 78 challenge to the Zoning Board of Appeals' July 18, 2012 use-variance determination was timely.
- Whether the petitioners' administrative appeal challenging the August 7, 2012 building permit was timely.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (5)
- Matter of Cutalo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 55 AD3d 830, 831(followed)
- Matter of Vega v. Scheyer, 18 AD3d 664(followed)
- Matter of Peehl v. Village of Cold Spring, 129 AD3d 844(followed)
- Matter of Clarke v. Town of Sand Lake Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 52 AD3d 997, 999(followed)
- Matter of Highway Displays v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Wappinger, 32 AD2d 668(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…