This publish was authored by Tyler Doan, JD
Shelbourne, the attainable purchaser of positive property inside the Metropolis of Greenburgh, utilized to the Metropolis Board for a selected permit in relation to its proposed constructing of an assisted dwelling facility on the property they supposed to purchase. The native zoning ordinance authorizes the Metropolis Board to drawback specific permits for the occasion of acknowledged facilities contained in the zoning district so long as the enterprise complies with circumstances set forth inside the Greenburgh Code. The Metropolis Board ultimately accredited the actual permit. Petitioners commenced the lawsuit pursuant to CPLR article 78 to overview the Metropolis Board’s willpower along with a conditioned damaging declaration pursuant to the New York State Environmental Top quality Consider Act (SEQRA). Respondents moved to dismiss the petition. The Supreme Courtroom docket granted the motions to dismiss the petition based totally on the petitioners’ lack of standing and on the selection ground that the persevering with was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The Appellate Courtroom docket stated that “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a celebration may not litigate a declare the place a judgment on the deserves exists from a earlier movement between the similar occasions involving the similar topic materials” and that the rule applies not solely to claims actually litigated nonetheless claims that may have been raised all through acknowledged litigation. The Courtroom docket determined that the division of the petition which was to overview the SEQRA willpower was appropriately barred as a consequence of a earlier persevering with involving the similar petitioners along with the ZBA the place the Supreme Courtroom docket had determined that the petitioner’s drawback to the SEQRA willpower was time- barred.
The Appellate Courtroom docket further reasoned that the petitioners lacked standing. The petitioners “did not allege any legally cognizable harm with respect to an anticipated enhance inside the number of emergency calls on account of constructing of the proposed assisted dwelling facility . . .” The Courtroom docket determined that these concerns had been exterior the zone of pursuits that the Greenburgh Code sought to protect. Furthermore, the Courtroom docket reasoned that the petitioners’ generalized allegations that the Metropolis Board’s willpower may finish in a avenue safety hazard for its emergency car had been conclusory and speculative, and unable to take care of standing.
The Appellate Courtroom docket affirmed the Supreme Courtroom docket’s alternative and dismissed the petition.
Greenville Fireside District v. Metropolis of Greenburgh, 2022 WL 468413 (NYAD 2 Dept. 2022)