N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Town / ARTICLE Zoning and Planning
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Town Law § 282 (2026)

Court review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 282. Court review. Any person or persons, jointly or severally
aggrieved by any decision of the planning board concerning such plat or
the changing of the zoning regulations of such land, or any officer,
department, board or bureau of the town, may have the decision reviewed
by a special term of the supreme court in the manner provided by article
seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules provided the
proceeding is commenced within thirty days after the filing of the
decision in the office of the town clerk.
  Commencement of the proceeding shall stay proceedings upon the
decision appealed from.
  If, upon the hearing, it shall appear to the court that testimony is
necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence
or appoint a referee to take such evidence as it may direct and report
the same to the court with his findings of fact and conclusions of law,
which shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the
determination of the court shall be made. The court may reverse or
affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for
review.
  Costs shall not be allowed against the planning board, unless it shall
appear to the court that it acted with gross negligence or in bad faith
or with malice in making the decision appealed from.
  All issues in any proceeding under this section shall have preference
over all other civil actions and proceedings.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases, 1985–2019 · leading case: King v. Chmielewski, 556 N.E.2d 435 (NY 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King v. Chmielewski, 556 N.E.2d 435 (NY 1990). · cites it 4× “Timeliness of Proceedings Against The Board As against the Board, the petition was correctly dismissed as untimely under Town Law § 282. A party aggrieved by a decision of a planning board "concerning such plat or the changing of the zoning regulations of such land, or any…”
Smith v. Town of Mendon, 822 N.E.2d 1214 (NY 2004). · cites it 2× “They also alleged that the Board's decision to condition final site plan approval on their acceptance of the conservation restriction was arbitrary and capricious, and sought attorneys' fees pursuant to Town Law § 282. That section permits a court to award costs to a person or…”
Int'l Innovative Tech. Grp. Corp. v. Plan. Bd. of Town of Woodbury, 20 A.D.3d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · cites it 3× “The Planning Board moved to dismiss the petition upon objections in point of law that the petitioner’s challenge to certain of the conditions of final subdivision approval was time barred pursuant to Town Law § 282 and that the Planning Board did not act illegally or in an…”
Rose Woods, LLC v. Weisman, 85 A.D.3d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 2× “*803 Regardless of how the petitioners characterize this proceeding, they are, in effect, seeking to review the Planning Board’s determination dated June 19, 2008, and filed June 20, 2008, which is subject to a 30-day statute of limitations (see Town Law § 282). The petitioners’…”
Long Island Pine Barrens Soc'y, Inc. v. Plan. Bd. of Brookhaven, 585 N.E.2d 778 (NY 1991). · cites it 4× “Town Law § 282 states that "[a]ny person * * * aggrieved by any decision of the planning board concerning such plat * * * may have the decision [judicially] reviewed * * * provided the proceeding is commenced within thirty days after the filing of the decision”.”
Grp. For The South Fork, Inc. v. Wines, 190 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). · cites it 2× “The petitioner’s claims with respect to the propriety of the review by the Planning Board of the Town of Southampton (hereinafter the Planning Board) of the subdivision application pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (hereinafter SEQRA) were not time barred by…”
Friends of Shawangunks, Inc. v. Knowlton, 476 N.E.2d 988 (NY 1985). “, 59 NY2d 385, 392; People v Graham, 55 NY2d 144, 152), but also the fact that subdivision (b) of that section makes the number of permitted dwelling units a matter of “the planning board’s judgment,” which may be overturned only if illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion…”
Cerame v. Town of Perinton Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 6 A.D.3d 1091 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). “At the outset, we reject respondents’ contention that the court erred in deciding this proceeding on the merits (see Town Law § 282). Turning to the merits, Town Law § 267-b (1) provides that, in reviewing an administrative officer’s determination, the ZBA: “may reverse or…”
Pres. Collective v. Town of Monroe, 32 A.D.3d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 3× “The respondents and Highview separately moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petitioners’ challenge to the SEQRA findings statement and the resolution was time-barred pursuant to Town Law § 282 and that the petitioners lacked standing to bring the proceeding.”
Casement v. Town of Poughkeepsie Plan. Bd., 162 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). “v Williams, 131 AD2d 205, 207-208 ), his challenge is time barred under the 30-day limitation period set forth by Town Law §§282 and 274-a (3) which displace the four-month limitation period of CPLR 217.”
Nicklin-McKay v. Town of Marlborough Plan. Bd., 14 A.D.3d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “The statute of limitations defense has no merit as respondents admit in their answer that petitioners timely commenced this proceeding by the filing of a notice of petition and petition in the Ulster County Clerk’s office within the 30-day statute of limitations found in Town…”
Rossetti v. Chittenden Cnty. Transp. Auth., 674 A.2d 1284 (Vt. 1996). “, N.Y. Town Law § 282 (McKinney 1987); Mass.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.