special facts exception (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

special facts exception in New York

41 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1992–2025 15 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (29)

CaseFollowedCited
Jana L. v. West 129th Street Realty Corp.green
nyappdiv · 2005 · cited in 12 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2025
2 sentences

2025Realty Corp. , 22 AD3d 274, 277-278 ).

2024Realty Corp., 22 AD3d 274, 278 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Solomon Capital, LLC v Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., 171 AD3d 467 , 469 [1st Dept 2019]).

1012
Pokoik v. Silsdorfgreen
ny · 1976 · cited in 9 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2018
2 sentences

2013Generally, a court must apply the zoning ordinance as it exists at the time a decision is rendered (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Demisay, Inc. v Petito, 31 NY2d 896, 897 [1972]; Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]), and the special facts exception to this rule is inapplicable here (see Matter of Nathan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Russell Gardens, 95 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020 [2012]; Matter of Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v Prusinowski, 94 AD3d 888 [2012]; Matter of D’Agostino Bros.

2013Generally, a court must apply the zoning ordinance as it exists at the time a decision is rendered (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Demisay, Inc. v Petito, 31 NY2d 896, 897 [1972]; Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]), and the special facts exception to this rule is inapplicable here (see Matter of Nathan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Russell Gardens, 95 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020 [2012]; Matter of Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v Prusinowski, 94 AD3d 888 [2012]; Matter of D’Agostino Bros.

69
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v. Berryman & Henigar, Inc.green
nyappdiv · 2015 · cited in 5 New York opinions naming this issue, 2021–2025
2 sentences

2025Contrary to BTA's argument on appeal, it may not rely on the special facts doctrine, as it fails to identify any transaction between BTA and the Lightstone defendants to which the doctrine would apply ( see Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Berryman & Henigar, Inc. , 130 AD3d 514, 516 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 29 NY3d 913 [2017]; cf. Citi Mgt.

2021For the same reason, the special facts doctrine also does not apply ( see Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Berryman & Henigar, Inc. , 130 AD3d 514, 516 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 29 NY3d 913 [2017]).

55
Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v. Town of Brookhavengreen
ny · 2013 · cited in 5 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2018
2 sentences

2018The special facts exception may be applied where the landowner "establishes entitlement as a matter of right to the underlying land use application," and " extensive delay[ ] indicative of bad faith . . . unjustifiable actions by the municipal officials . . . or abuse of administrative procedures" ( Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v Town of Brookhaven , 21 NY3d 729, 736-737 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Alscot Inv.

2018The special facts exception may be applied where the landowner "establishes entitlement as a matter of right to the underlying land use application," and "extensive delay[ ] indicative of bad faith . . . unjustifiable actions by the municipal officials . . . or abuse of administrative procedures" ( Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v Town of Brookhaven , 21 NY3d 729, 736-737 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Alscot Inv.

55
Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appealsgreen
nyappdiv · 2008 · cited in 5 New York opinions naming this issue, 2009–2014
2 sentences

2014We deem six months to be a reasonable time for any social services district to file a claim for reimbursement of any pre-2006 overburden expenditures, with the 2012 amendment barring as untimely any claims submitted thereafter. * We reject petitioner’s argument that the special facts exception applies here so as to require DOH to approve petitioner’s claims under the law as it existed prior to the 2012 amendment (compare Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v Town of Brookhaven, 21 NY3d 729, 737 [2013], with Matter of Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Mamaroneck, 53

2014We deem six months to be a reasonable time for any social services district to file a claim for reimbursement of any pre-2006 overburden expenditures, with the 2012 amendment barring as untimely any claims submitted thereafter. * We reject petitioner’s argument that the special facts exception applies here so as to require DOH to approve petitioner’s claims under the law as it existed prior to the 2012 amendment (compare Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v Town of Brookhaven, 21 NY3d 729, 737 [2013], with Matter of Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Mamaroneck, 53

55
BBJ Associates, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appealsgreen
nyappdiv · 2009 · cited in 5 New York opinions naming this issue, 2012–2013
2 sentences

2013Generally, a court must apply the zoning ordinance as it exists at the time a decision is rendered (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Demisay, Inc. v Petito, 31 NY2d 896, 897 [1972]; Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]), and the special facts exception to this rule is inapplicable here (see Matter of Nathan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Russell Gardens, 95 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020 [2012]; Matter of Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v Prusinowski, 94 AD3d 888 [2012]; Matter of D’Agostino Bros.

2013Generally, a court must apply the zoning ordinance as it exists at the time a decision is rendered (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Demisay, Inc. v Petito, 31 NY2d 896, 897 [1972]; Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]), and the special facts exception to this rule is inapplicable here (see Matter of Nathan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Russell Gardens, 95 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020 [2012]; Matter of Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v Prusinowski, 94 AD3d 888 [2012]; Matter of D’Agostino Bros.

55
Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. Town of Southamptongreen
nyappdiv · 1984 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016We agree with petitioners that the special facts exception may be applied to the application for a special use permit (see Matter of Gardiner v Lo Grande, 83 AD2d 614, 615 [1981], following remittal 92 AD2d 611 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 673 [1983] for the reasons stated in 83 AD2d 614 [1981]; Matter of do Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach, 98 AD3d 736, 736-737 [2012]; see also Matter of Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete v Town of Southampton, 104 AD2d 499, 499-500 [1984]), and that our decision in Morgan v Town of W.

2016We agree with petitioners that the special facts exception may be applied to the application for a special use permit (see Matter of Gardiner v Lo Grande, 83 AD2d 614, 615 [1981], following remittal 92 AD2d 611 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 673 [1983] for the reasons stated in 83 AD2d 614 [1981]; Matter of do Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach, 98 AD3d 736, 736-737 [2012]; see also Matter of Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete v Town of Southampton, 104 AD2d 499, 499-500 [1984]), and that our decision in Morgan v Town of W.

33
Hamptons, LLC v. Rickenbachgreen
nyappdiv · 2012 · cited in 5 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2018
2 sentences

2016We agree with petitioners that the special facts exception may be applied to the application for a special use permit (see Matter of Gardiner v Lo Grande, 83 AD2d 614, 615 [1981], following remittal 92 AD2d 611 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 673 [1983] for the reasons stated in 83 AD2d 614 [1981]; Matter of do Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach, 98 AD3d 736, 736-737 [2012]; see also Matter of Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete v Town of Southampton, 104 AD2d 499, 499-500 [1984]), and that our decision in Morgan v Town of W.

2016We agree with petitioners that the special facts exception may be applied to the application for a special use permit (see Matter of Gardiner v Lo Grande, 83 AD2d 614, 615 [1981], following remittal 92 AD2d 611 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 673 [1983] for the reasons stated in 83 AD2d 614 [1981]; Matter of do Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach, 98 AD3d 736, 736-737 [2012]; see also Matter of Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete v Town of Southampton, 104 AD2d 499, 499-500 [1984]), and that our decision in Morgan v Town of W.

25
D'Agostino Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Vecchiogreen
nyappdiv · 2004 · cited in 5 New York opinions naming this issue, 2009–2013
2 sentences

2012Enters., Inc. v Vecchio, 13 AD3d 369 [2004]), pursuant to the special facts exception, this Court may apply the law in effect at the time the petitioner’s application to the Zoning Board was made.

2012Enters., Inc. v Vecchio, 13 AD3d 369 [2004]), pursuant to the special facts exception, this Court may apply the law in effect at the time the petitioner’s application to the Zoning Board was made.

25
De Cesare v. De Cesaregreen
nyappdiv · 1981 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016We agree with petitioners that the special facts exception may be applied to the application for a special use permit (see Matter of Gardiner v Lo Grande, 83 AD2d 614, 615 [1981], following remittal 92 AD2d 611 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 673 [1983] for the reasons stated in 83 AD2d 614 [1981]; Matter of do Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach, 98 AD3d 736, 736-737 [2012]; see also Matter of Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete v Town of Southampton, 104 AD2d 499, 499-500 [1984]), and that our decision in Morgan v Town of W.

2016We agree with petitioners that the special facts exception may be applied to the application for a special use permit (see Matter of Gardiner v Lo Grande, 83 AD2d 614, 615 [1981], following remittal 92 AD2d 611 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 673 [1983] for the reasons stated in 83 AD2d 614 [1981]; Matter of do Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach, 98 AD3d 736, 736-737 [2012]; see also Matter of Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete v Town of Southampton, 104 AD2d 499, 499-500 [1984]), and that our decision in Morgan v Town of W.

23
Leon v. Martinezgreen
ny · 1994 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016We therefore conclude that petitioners stated a cause of action for applying the special facts exception to Elam’s application for a special use permit (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

2016We therefore conclude that petitioners stated a cause of action for applying the special facts exception to Elam’s application for a special use permit (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

23
Lemir Realty Corp. v. Larkingreen
ny · 1962 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016We also agree with petitioners that Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin ( 11 NY2d 20, 24 [1962]) does not prohibit the consideration of the special facts exception to an application for a special use permit.

2016We also agree with petitioners that Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin ( 11 NY2d 20, 24 [1962]) does not prohibit the consideration of the special facts exception to an application for a special use permit.

23
Morgan v. Town of West Bloomfieldgreen
nyappdiv · 2002 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016Bloomfield ( 295 AD2d 902, 904 [2002]) is not to the contrary.

2016Bloomfield ( 295 AD2d 902, 904 [2002]) is not to the contrary.

23
Golisano v. Town Board of Macedongreen
nyappdiv · 1968 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2012–2013
2 sentences

2012Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the special facts exception applied, as the record reflects that the petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter the petitioners) would have been entitled to a special use permit allowing them to offer outdoor dining at their inn and restaurant under the law as it existed when they applied for such permit, and that the appellants acted in bad faith in both delaying action on the petitioners’ application, and hastily enacting Local Law No. 10 (2009) of the Village of East Hampton (hereinafter the Local Law), which was specifically intended to defeat the

2012Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the special facts exception applied, as the record reflects that the petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter the petitioners) would have been entitled to a special use permit allowing them to offer outdoor dining at their inn and restaurant under the law as it existed when they applied for such permit, and that the appellants acted in bad faith in both delaying action on the petitioners’ application, and hastily enacting Local Law No. 10 (2009) of the Village of East Hampton (hereinafter the Local Law), which was specifically intended to defeat the

23
Nathan v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Russell Gardensgreen
nyappdiv · 2012 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013Generally, a court must apply the zoning ordinance as it exists at the time a decision is rendered (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Demisay, Inc. v Petito, 31 NY2d 896, 897 [1972]; Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]), and the special facts exception to this rule is inapplicable here (see Matter of Nathan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Russell Gardens, 95 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020 [2012]; Matter of Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v Prusinowski, 94 AD3d 888 [2012]; Matter of D’Agostino Bros.

2013Generally, a court must apply the zoning ordinance as it exists at the time a decision is rendered (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Demisay, Inc. v Petito, 31 NY2d 896, 897 [1972]; Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]), and the special facts exception to this rule is inapplicable here (see Matter of Nathan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Russell Gardens, 95 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020 [2012]; Matter of Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v Prusinowski, 94 AD3d 888 [2012]; Matter of D’Agostino Bros.

22
Demisay, Inc. v. Petitogreen
ny · 1972 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013Generally, a court must apply the zoning ordinance as it exists at the time a decision is rendered (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Demisay, Inc. v Petito, 31 NY2d 896, 897 [1972]; Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]), and the special facts exception to this rule is inapplicable here (see Matter of Nathan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Russell Gardens, 95 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020 [2012]; Matter of Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v Prusinowski, 94 AD3d 888 [2012]; Matter of D’Agostino Bros.

2013Generally, a court must apply the zoning ordinance as it exists at the time a decision is rendered (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Demisay, Inc. v Petito, 31 NY2d 896, 897 [1972]; Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]), and the special facts exception to this rule is inapplicable here (see Matter of Nathan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Russell Gardens, 95 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020 [2012]; Matter of Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v Prusinowski, 94 AD3d 888 [2012]; Matter of D’Agostino Bros.

22
Allstate Insurance v. Taddeogreen
nyappdiv · 2001 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2012
2 sentences

2012Since the petitioners were not entitled to any variances as a matter of right prior to the enactment of Village Code § 60-12.1, including the variances from the minimum lot size requirement, this case does not fall within the special facts exception (Matter of Anstu Farm v Town Bd. of Town of Wash., 285 AD2d 503, 504 [2001]).

2009This Court need not consider the new law or whether the special facts exception applies in this case, if the determination under review may be sustained based upon the prior law (see generally Matter of Jamaica Recycling Corp. v City of New York, 38 AD3d 398 [2007]; Matter of Anstu Farm v Town Bd. of Town of Wash., 285 AD2d 503 [2001]).

13
Alvarado v. Hotel Salisbury, Inc.green
nyappdiv · 2007 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2009–2012
2 sentences

2012To claim the benefit of the special facts exception, however, a petitioner must have been entitled to the relief sought as a matter of right before the law changed (id. at 159; see Matter of Jamaica Recycling Corp. v City of New York, 38 AD3d 398, 400 [2007]).

2009This Court need not consider the new law or whether the special facts exception applies in this case, if the determination under review may be sustained based upon the prior law (see generally Matter of Jamaica Recycling Corp. v City of New York, 38 AD3d 398 [2007]; Matter of Anstu Farm v Town Bd. of Town of Wash., 285 AD2d 503 [2001]).

12
Miele v. American Tobacco Co.green
nyappdiv · 2003 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
11
Citi Management Group, Ltd. v. Highbridge House Ogden, LLCgreen
nyappdiv · 2007 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025Group, Ltd. v Highbridge House Ogden, LLC, 45 AD3d 487, 487 [1st Dept 2007]).

11
Consorcio Prodipe, S.A. De C v. v. Vinci, S.A.green
nysd · 2008 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
11
People v. Castillogreen
nyappdiv · 2015 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
11
TIAA Global Investments, LLC v. One Astoria Square LLCgreen
nyappdiv · 2015 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
11
Freihofer v. Lake George Zoning Board of Appealsgreen
nyappdiv · 1988 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
11
Our Lady of Good Counsel Roman Catholic Church & School v. Ballgreen
nyappdiv · 1974 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11
Bibeau v. Village Clerk of Village of Tuxedo Parkgreen
nyappdiv · 1988 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11
Cleary v. Bibbogreen
nyappdiv · 1997 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Village of Rockville Centregreen
nyappdiv · 2002 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11
Preble Aggregate, Inc. v. Town of Preblegreen
nyappdiv · 1999 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (28)

CaseCitedYears
In re Iceies B. green
ny · 2017
2 sentences

2025Contrary to BTA's argument on appeal, it may not rely on the special facts doctrine, as it fails to identify any transaction between BTA and the Lightstone defendants to which the doctrine would apply ( see Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Berryman & Henigar, Inc. , 130 AD3d 514, 516 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 29 NY3d 913 [2017]; cf. Citi Mgt.

2021For the same reason, the special facts doctrine also does not apply ( see Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Berryman & Henigar, Inc. , 130 AD3d 514, 516 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 29 NY3d 913 [2017]).

52021–2025
Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V. green
ny · 2011
2 sentences

2025Plaintiffs maintain that the Release was procured by fraud, arguing that defendants "had a duty to disclose to [them] the information about the sale to Decree, including . . . the [LOI], because they were in a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs . . . and also pursuant to the special facts doctrine" (NYSCEF Doc No. 48 at 16-17). "[A] release that . . . extinguishes liability on any and all claims arising in connection with specified matters is deemed to encompass claims of fraud relating to those matters, even if the release does not specifically refer to fraud" ( Centro Empresarial Cempres

2021Even if the parties are in a fiduciary relationship, this does not invalidate the release, which was negotiated in the context of an arm's-length business transaction ( see Centro , 17 NY3d at 278 ; Kafa Invs., LLC v 2170-2178 Broadway LLC , 114 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 902 [2014]).

32021–2025
Bethea v. Webb green
nyappdiv · 1983
2 sentences

2016We agree with petitioners that the special facts exception may be applied to the application for a special use permit (see Matter of Gardiner v Lo Grande, 83 AD2d 614, 615 [1981], following remittal 92 AD2d 611 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 673 [1983] for the reasons stated in 83 AD2d 614 [1981]; Matter of do Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach, 98 AD3d 736, 736-737 [2012]; see also Matter of Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete v Town of Southampton, 104 AD2d 499, 499-500 [1984]), and that our decision in Morgan v Town of W.

2016We agree with petitioners that the special facts exception may be applied to the application for a special use permit (see Matter of Gardiner v Lo Grande, 83 AD2d 614, 615 [1981], following remittal 92 AD2d 611 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 673 [1983] for the reasons stated in 83 AD2d 614 [1981]; Matter of do Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach, 98 AD3d 736, 736-737 [2012]; see also Matter of Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete v Town of Southampton, 104 AD2d 499, 499-500 [1984]), and that our decision in Morgan v Town of W.

32016–2016
Gardiner v. Lo Grande neutral
ny · 1983
2 sentences

2016We agree with petitioners that the special facts exception may be applied to the application for a special use permit (see Matter of Gardiner v Lo Grande, 83 AD2d 614, 615 [1981], following remittal 92 AD2d 611 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 673 [1983] for the reasons stated in 83 AD2d 614 [1981]; Matter of do Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach, 98 AD3d 736, 736-737 [2012]; see also Matter of Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete v Town of Southampton, 104 AD2d 499, 499-500 [1984]), and that our decision in Morgan v Town of W.

2016We agree with petitioners that the special facts exception may be applied to the application for a special use permit (see Matter of Gardiner v Lo Grande, 83 AD2d 614, 615 [1981], following remittal 92 AD2d 611 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 673 [1983] for the reasons stated in 83 AD2d 614 [1981]; Matter of do Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach, 98 AD3d 736, 736-737 [2012]; see also Matter of Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete v Town of Southampton, 104 AD2d 499, 499-500 [1984]), and that our decision in Morgan v Town of W.

32016–2016
Figgie International, Inc. v. Town of Huntington green
nyappdiv · 1994
2 sentences

2012The special facts exception may be applied if the municipality unduly delayed proceedings and acted in bad faith (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Mamaroneck, 53 AD3d 494, 497 [2008]; Caruso v Town of Oyster Bay, 250 AD2d 639 [1998]; Figgie Intl. v Town of Huntington, 203 AD2d 416 [1994])” (Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]).

2012The special facts exception may be applied if the municipality unduly delayed proceedings and acted in bad faith (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Mamaroneck, 53 AD3d 494, 497 [2008]; Caruso v Town of Oyster Bay, 250 AD2d 639 [1998]; Figgie Intl. v Town of Huntington, 203 AD2d 416 [1994])” (Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]).

32009–2012
Caruso v. Town of Oyster Bay green
nyappdiv · 1998
2 sentences

2012The special facts exception may be applied if the municipality unduly delayed proceedings and acted in bad faith (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Mamaroneck, 53 AD3d 494, 497 [2008]; Caruso v Town of Oyster Bay, 250 AD2d 639 [1998]; Figgie Intl. v Town of Huntington, 203 AD2d 416 [1994])” (Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]).

2012The special facts exception may be applied if the municipality unduly delayed proceedings and acted in bad faith (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Mamaroneck, 53 AD3d 494, 497 [2008]; Caruso v Town of Oyster Bay, 250 AD2d 639 [1998]; Figgie Intl. v Town of Huntington, 203 AD2d 416 [1994])” (Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]).

32009–2012
Marisol R. v. Atai T. green
nyappdiv · 2014
2 sentences

2021Even if the parties are in a fiduciary relationship, this does not invalidate the release, which was negotiated in the context of an arm's-length business transaction ( see Centro , 17 NY3d at 278 ; Kafa Invs., LLC v 2170-2178 Broadway LLC , 114 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 902 [2014]).

2021Even if the parties are in a fiduciary relationship, this does not invalidate the release, which was negotiated in the context of an arm's-length business transaction ( see Centro , 17 NY3d at 278 ; Kafa Invs., LLC v 2170-2178 Broadway LLC , 114 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 902 [2014]).

22021–2021
Alscot Investing Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre green
ny · 1985
2 sentences

2018Corp. v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Ctr ., 64 NY2d 921, 922 ; Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf , 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 ; Matter of c/o Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach , 98 AD3d 736, 737 ).

2018Corp. v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Ctr ., 64 NY2d 921, 922 ; Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf , 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 ; Matter of c/o Hamptons, LLC v Rickenbach , 98 AD3d 736, 737 ).

22018–2018
Iozzo v. Westchester Country Club green
ny · 2008
2 sentences

2014We deem six months to be a reasonable time for any social services district to file a claim for reimbursement of any pre-2006 overburden expenditures, with the 2012 amendment barring as untimely any claims submitted thereafter. * We reject petitioner’s argument that the special facts exception applies here so as to require DOH to approve petitioner’s claims under the law as it existed prior to the 2012 amendment (compare Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v Town of Brookhaven, 21 NY3d 729, 737 [2013], with Matter of Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Mamaroneck, 53

2014We deem six months to be a reasonable time for any social services district to file a claim for reimbursement of any pre-2006 overburden expenditures, with the 2012 amendment barring as untimely any claims submitted thereafter. * We reject petitioner’s argument that the special facts exception applies here so as to require DOH to approve petitioner’s claims under the law as it existed prior to the 2012 amendment (compare Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v Town of Brookhaven, 21 NY3d 729, 737 [2013], with Matter of Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Mamaroneck, 53

22014–2014
Government Employees Insurance v. Baik green
nyappdiv · 2012
2 sentences

2013Generally, a court must apply the zoning ordinance as it exists at the time a decision is rendered (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Demisay, Inc. v Petito, 31 NY2d 896, 897 [1972]; Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]), and the special facts exception to this rule is inapplicable here (see Matter of Nathan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Russell Gardens, 95 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020 [2012]; Matter of Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v Prusinowski, 94 AD3d 888 [2012]; Matter of D’Agostino Bros.

2013Generally, a court must apply the zoning ordinance as it exists at the time a decision is rendered (see Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf, 40 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1976]; Matter of Demisay, Inc. v Petito, 31 NY2d 896, 897 [1972]; Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 AD3d 154, 158-159 [2009]), and the special facts exception to this rule is inapplicable here (see Matter of Nathan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Russell Gardens, 95 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020 [2012]; Matter of Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v Prusinowski, 94 AD3d 888 [2012]; Matter of D’Agostino Bros.

22013–2013
Barrett v. Freifeld green
nyappdiv · 2009
12025–2025
Swersky v. Dreyer & Traub green
nyappdiv · 1996
1 sentence

2025Even assuming that the plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship ( see Marmelstein v Kehillat New Hempstead: The Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue , 11 NY3d 15, 21-22 ; J.D. v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn , 203 AD3d 880 , 881-882), his allegations were nonetheless sufficient, at the pleading stage, to establish a duty to disclose based upon the special facts doctrine and, thus, to allege a cause of action to set aside or rescind the releases on the ground of fraudulent concealment ( see Barrett v Freifeld , 64 AD3d at 738 ;

12025–2025
Marmelstein v. Kehillat New Hempstead green
ny · 2008
12025–2025
King Penguin Opportunity Fund III, LLC v. Spectrum Group Mgt. LLC green
nyappdiv · 2020
12022–2022
P.T. Bank Central Asia v. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. green
nyappdiv · 2003
12019–2019
McCormick v. Bechtol green
nyappdiv · 2009
12017–2017
Perez v. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Ass'n neutral
scotus · 2010
12017–2017
Wilensky v. JRB Marketing & Opinion Research, Inc. green
nyappdiv · 1988
12015–2015
Marsh v. Town of Huntington neutral
nyappdiv · 1972
12013–2013
Rosano v. Town Board of Riverhead neutral
nyappdiv · 1973
12013–2013
Boardwalk & Seashore Corp. v. Murdock green
ny · 1941
12013–2013
Jul-Bet Enterprises, LLC v. Town Board of Riverhead green
nyappdiv · 2008
12009–2009
Mitschele v. Schultz green
nyappdiv · 2006
12007–2007
Marine Midland Trust Co. v. Halik green
nyappdiv · 1967
12006–2006
Gramatan Hills Manor, Inc. v. Manganiello green
nysupct · 1961
12006–2006
Ronsvalle v. Totman green
nyappdiv · 2003
12006–2006
Frittita v. Pax green
nyappdiv · 1998
12002–2002
King Road Materials, Inc. v. Garafalo green
nyappdiv · 1991
11992–1992

Where else courts name it

NY 41 (1992–2025) DE 3 (2013–2025) MO 2 (1992–1994)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check