State Funding Corp. v. Plan. Bd., 147 A.D.2d 705 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
State Funding Corp. v. Plan. Bd., 147 A.D.2d 705 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Deegan v. City of New York (nyappdiv, 1996-05-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Deegan v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
These reports merely described the circumstances attendant to the incident and made no connection between the incident and the allegedly negligent conduct of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (see, Fox v City of New York, 91 AD2d 624 ; see also, Matter of Zbryski v City of New York, 147 AD2d 705 ; Matter of Mallory v City of New York, 135 AD2d 636 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of State Funding Corporation
v.
Planning Board of the Town of Poughkeepsie
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 27, 1989.
147 A.D.2d 705
1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2277
Published

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Poughkeepsie, dated August 1, 1986, which, inter alia, granted final site plan approval for a hotel and office park complex, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated June 29, 1987, as dismissed the petition for lack of standing, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated October 22, 1987, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 29, 1987 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 22,1987; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 22, 1987 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

Because the petitioners Weiss and State Funding Corporation, who are the respective owners of two motels within two miles of the proposed hotel complex and an adjacent apartment building, have failed to substantiate any allegation of aggrievement beyond the threat of increased business competition, they lack standing to bring this proceeding challenging the respondents’ approval of the final site plan. It is well settled that mere competitive injury is not an interest protected by the zoning laws (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 NY2d 406; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6; 4 Anderson, American Law of Zoning §27.17 [3d ed]). Accordingly, dismissal of the petition was warranted on the ground that the petitioners lacked standing to maintain this proceeding. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.