Davidson v. Vill. of Penn Yan, 107 A.D.3d 1423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Davidson v. Vill. of Penn Yan, 107 A.D.3d 1423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Warren v. Dickson (nyappdiv, 2025-06-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Warren v. Dickson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
However, the doctrine should not be applied to allow challenges, such as the one here, to "determinations of local governmental officials having no appreciable public significance beyond the immediately affected parties, by persons having only the remotest legitimate interest in the matter" ( id. at 410-411 ; see Aklog , 219 AD3d at 606-607 ; Matter of Davidson v Village of Penn Yan , 107 AD3d 1423, 1423 [4th Dept 2013]; cf .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Wayne Davidson
v.
Village of Penn Yan
Appeal No. 1.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 7, 2013.
107 A.D.3d 1423
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Yates County (Dennis F. Bender, A.J.), entered July 18, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment, inter alia, dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced these CPLR article 78 proceedings seeking, inter alia, to annul two resolutions adopted by respondent Village Board of Trustees of Village of Penn Yan (the Board) concerning the establishment of a service awards program for volunteer firefighters pursuant to General Municipal Law article 11-A. Respondents moved to dismiss both petitions on, inter alia, the ground that petitioner lacks standing to challenge the resolutions. Supreme Court granted respondents’ motions and dismissed the petitions. Petitioner appeals, and we affirm.

With respect to appeal Nos. 1 and 2, we note that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is personally aggrieved by the Board’s actions inasmuch as he did not establish that he “sustained special damage, different in kind and degree from the community generally” (Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d 406, 413 [1987]). “Although the doctrine of common-law taxpayer standing . . . would excuse such lack of personal aggrievement, that doctrine requires a petitioner to establish that the failure to accord such standing would be in effect to erect an impenetrable barrier to any judicial scrutiny of [the Board’s] action” (Matter of Seidel v Prendergast, 87 AD3d 545, 546 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 716 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Colella v Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 95 NY2d 401, 410 [2000]), and petitioner has not made such a showing. We therefore conclude that the court properly[*1424] granted the motions to dismiss the respective petitions. In light of our determination, we do not address petitioner’s remaining contentions. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Garni, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.