Rice v. Newburger, 272 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Rice v. Newburger, 272 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Agress v. Clarkstown Central School District (nyappdiv, 2010-01-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Agress v. Clarkstown Central School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
As a general rule, estoppel may not be invoked against a governmental body to prevent it from performing its statutory duty or from rectifying an administrative error (see Matter of 333 E. 89 Realty v New York City Water Bd., 272 AD2d 549, 550 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Greenwich House Holding Corp. v. New York City Water Board
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Nor does estoppel apply (see Matter of Daleview Nursing Home v Axelrod, 62 NY2d 30, 33 [1984]; Matter of 333 E. 89 Realty v New York City Water Bd., 272 AD2d 549, 550 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 762 [2000]), particularly since respondent Department of Environmental Protection’s predeadline March 31, 2000 notice should have alerted petitioner that the election of metered billing form was not being regarded as a request for meter installation.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Raymond J. Rice
v.
May W. Newburger
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 22, 2000.
272 A.D.2d 549
Published

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the appellant Superintendent of Highways for the Town of North Hempstead, dated October 6, 1998, which denied the petitioner’s application for a curb-cut permit, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated May 31, 1999, which granted the petition and denied the appellants’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the petitioner failed to show that the appellants’ denial of his curb-cut application was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see, Burger King Corp. v County of Suffolk, Dept. of Public Works, 121 AD2d 494; Token Carpentry v Hornik, 92 AD2d 868; see also, Matter of Syosset Indus. Bldrs. v Town of Oyster Bay Highway Dept. 24 AD2d 763). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.