Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

Sabatini v. Incorporated Village of Kensington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 4, 2001

284 A.D.2d 320; 725 N.Y.S.2d 567; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5632

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of O'Malley v. Town of New Windsor Planning Bd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Goldberg v. Incorporated Village of Roslyn Estates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Charest v. Morrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Lucas v. Village of Mamaroneck (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Iacone v. Building Department of Oyster Bay Cove Village (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Levine v. Town of Clarkstown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

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

—In an action, inter alia, in effect, to invalidate a building permit issued by the defendant Incorporated Village of Kensington to the defendants Peter Nikakis and Harriet Nikakis, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated March 17, 2000, which, among other things, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss their amended complaint and denied their cross motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated July 6, 2000, which denied their motion, in effect, for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 6, 2000, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 17, 2000 is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs failed to obtain administrative review of the *321determination of the building inspector of the defendant Incorporated Village of Kensington granting a building permit by the Village Zoning Board of Appeals (see, Village Law § 7-712-a). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the action on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies (see, Sloane v Annunziato, 234 AD2d 281).

The plaintiffs’ motion, characterized as one for reargument and renewal, was properly determined by the Supreme Court to be one for reargument (see, Piacentini v Mineola Union Free School Dist., 279 AD2d 513). Accordingly, the appeal from the order denying that motion must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument (see, Piacentini v Mineola Union Free School Dist., supra).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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