Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Kam Hampton I Realty Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 19, 2000

273 A.D.2d 387; 710 N.Y.S.2d 915; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7041

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of 57 Elmhurst, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Matter of Palmer v. Town of New Windsor Zoning Bd. of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of Seaview Assn. of Fire Is., NY, Inc. v. Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Kaufman v. Incorporated Village of Kings Point (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Wallon v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Licari v. Board of Education of Cold Spring Harbor Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Kam Hampton I Realty Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of East Hampton, dated November 8,1996, which, after a hearing, granted the application of the respondent Travertine Corporation for a Freshwater Wetlands Permit, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated March 16, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

*388The petitioners’ motion before the Supreme Court to strike certain affidavits submitted on behalf of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of East Hampton was properly denied. Judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the record before the agency, and proof outside the administrative record should not be considered (see, Matter of Van Antwerp v Board of Educ., 247 AD2d 676, 678; Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 90 AD2d 756, affd 58 NY2d 952). Here, the subject affidavits contained no new factual assertions. Moreover, one of the affidavits merely informed the Supreme Court that, based on revisions made by the respondent Travertine Corporation in its plans, several of the claims made by the petitioners had been rendered academic. It was proper to inform the court that subsequent events had rendered academic some of the claims contained in a petition before it.

The facts established before the Zoning Board of Appeals and contained in the record were sufficient to sustain the challenged determination (see, Matter of Levine v New York State Liq. Auth., 23 NY2d 863).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.