Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1988–2024 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re the County of Monroegreen2 sentences2024Factors to be considered in applying the "balancing of public interests" test, include, inter alia, "the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local interests" ( id. at 343 [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2023These factors include "the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local interests" ( id. at 343 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 6 | 8 |
Lincoln County v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2016In Orange County v City of Apopka (299 So 2d 652, 655 [Fla App]), the catalogue of potential factors to be considered by the reviewing court was expanded to include the applicant’s legislative grant of authority, alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas, and alternative methods of providing the needed improvement (see, Lincoln County v Johnson, 257 NW2d 453, 458 [SD]; Blackstone Park Improvement Assn. v Rhode Island Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 448 A2d 1233 [RI], supra). 1989In Orange County v City of Apopka (299 So 2d 652, 655 [Fla App]), the catalogue of potential factors to be considered by the reviewing court was expanded to include the applicant’s legislative grant of authority, alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas, and alternative methods of providing the needed improvement (see, Lincoln County v Johnson, 257 NW2d 453, 458 [SD]; Blackstone Park Improvement Assn. v Rhode Is. | 3 | 3 |
Town of Riverhead v. County of Suffolkgreen2 sentences2013Here, inasmuch as the record is inadequate to permit the appropriate balancing of those factors, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination, based upon a more complete record, whether the County is immune from the requirements of the Village zoning ordinance (see generally Town of Riverhead v County of Suffolk, 66 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2009]). 2013Here, inasmuch as the record is inadequate to permit the appropriate balancing of those factors, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination, based upon a more complete record, whether the County is immune from the requirements of the Village zoning ordinance (see generally Town of Riverhead v County of Suffolk, 66 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2009]). | 2 | 3 |
Incorporated Village of Munsey Park v. Manhasset-Lakeville Water Districtgreen1 sentence2023Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that application of the balancing of public interests test supports the Board's finding that the project at issue is immune from the petitioner's local zoning laws ( see Matter of Crown Communication N.Y., Inc. v Department of Transp. of State of N.Y. , 4 NY3d 159, 167-168 ; Town of Hempstead v State of New York , 42 AD3d 527, 529 ; see generally Incorporated Vil. of Munsey Park v Manhasset-Lakeville Water Dist. , 150 AD3d 969, 971 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rutgers v. Piluso
green
2 sentences2016Then, among the sundry related factors to be weighed in the test are: ‘the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local inter ests’ (id., 60 NJ, at 153, 286 A2d, at 702 ). 1995While a court is bound to engage in the evaluation of various factors, "none of which [are] controlling” (Westhab, Inc. v Village of Elmsford, 151 Misc 2d 1071, 1074 ), among the factors so weighed are " 'the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local interests’ ” (Matter of County of Monroe [City of Rochester], supra, at 343, quoting Rutgers State Univ. v Piluso, 60 N | 4 | 1988–2016 |
Crown Communication New York, Inc. v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2023Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that application of the balancing of public interests test supports the Board's finding that the project at issue is immune from the petitioner's local zoning laws ( see Matter of Crown Communication N.Y., Inc. v Department of Transp. of State of N.Y. , 4 NY3d 159, 167-168 ; Town of Hempstead v State of New York , 42 AD3d 527, 529 ; see generally Incorporated Vil. of Munsey Park v Manhasset-Lakeville Water Dist. , 150 AD3d 969, 971 ). 2007While County of Monroe involved two governmental agencies, the Court has made it clear that a private entity may share in the immunity accorded to the State if the result of the balancing test is in the State’s favor (see Matter of Crown Communication N.Y., Inc. v Department of Transp. of State of N.Y., 4 NY3d 159 [2005], cert denied sub nom. | 2 | 2007–2023 |
Blackstone Park Improvement Ass'n v. State Board of Standards & Appeals
green
2 sentences2016In Orange County v City of Apopka (299 So 2d 652, 655 [Fla App]), the catalogue of potential factors to be considered by the reviewing court was expanded to include the applicant’s legislative grant of authority, alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas, and alternative methods of providing the needed improvement (see, Lincoln County v Johnson, 257 NW2d 453, 458 [SD]; Blackstone Park Improvement Assn. v Rhode Island Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 448 A2d 1233 [RI], supra). 1988In Orange County v City of Apopka (299 So 2d 652, 655 [Fla App]), the catalogue of potential factors to be considered by the reviewing court was expanded to include the applicant’s legislative grant of authority, alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas, and alternative methods of providing the needed improvement (see, Lincoln County v Johnson, 257 NW2d 453, 458 [SD]; Blackstone Park Improvement Assn. v Rhode Island Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 448 A2d 1233 [RI], supra). | 2 | 1988–2016 |
Town of Hempstead v. State
green
1 sentence2023Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that application of the balancing of public interests test supports the Board's finding that the project at issue is immune from the petitioner's local zoning laws ( see Matter of Crown Communication N.Y., Inc. v Department of Transp. of State of N.Y. , 4 NY3d 159, 167-168 ; Town of Hempstead v State of New York , 42 AD3d 527, 529 ; see generally Incorporated Vil. of Munsey Park v Manhasset-Lakeville Water Dist. , 150 AD3d 969, 971 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
County of Herkimer v. Village of Herkimer
green
1 sentence2016The Appellate Division stated, in part: “The factors to be weighed in making that determination are ‘the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local interests [,] . . . the applicant’s legislative grant of authority, alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas, . . . alternative methods of providing the needed improvement [,] . . . intergover | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Westhab, Inc. v. Village of Elmsford
green
1 sentence1995While a court is bound to engage in the evaluation of various factors, "none of which [are] controlling” (Westhab, Inc. v Village of Elmsford, 151 Misc 2d 1071, 1074 ), among the factors so weighed are " 'the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local interests’ ” (Matter of County of Monroe [City of Rochester], supra, at 343, quoting Rutgers State Univ. v Piluso, 60 N | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.