New York Court of Appeals, 1976

Squicciarini v. Planning Board

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 23, 1976

38 N.Y.2d 958; 348 N.E.2d 609; 384 N.Y.S.2d 152; 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2597

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

TALL TREES v. Zoning Bd. (N.Y. 2001)
Hawaii Electric Light Co. v. Department of Land & Natural Resources (Haw. 2003)
Tall Trees Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals (N.Y. 2001)
Aloya v. Planning Board of the Town of Stony Point (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Hoffis v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Glens Falls (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Reiff v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board (New York Supreme Court 1985)
New York State Urban Development Corp. v. Vanderlex Merchandise Co. (New York Supreme Court 1979)
Robert Kapson Enterprises v. Planning Board of Inc. Village of Amityville (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York City, Inc. v. Rent Guidelines Board (New York Supreme Court 1978)
Stato v. Squicciarini (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
Walt Whitman Game Room Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Huntington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The Zoning Law of the Town of Chester provides that "Failure of the Planning Board to take action on a special permitted use within 45 days of the public hearing shall be construed as authorization of such use by the Planning Board” (§ 5.1.2.4).

Petitioners applied for a special permit for excavation and removal of sand and gravel, and a public hearing was held by the Planning Board on July 3, 1974. The only evidence in the record as to action assertedly taken by the Planning Board thereafter with respect to such application is proof that a special meeting of the board was held on July 16 at which four members of the seven-member board were present. On a motion to deny the application three members voted in favor and one member abstained. Since the concurring votes of at least four members ("a majority of the whole number”, General Construction Law, § 41) was required for effective action, the proposal to deny the application was not adopted. There being no other action with respect to the application, by explicit provision of the town’s zoning law, the failure of the *960board to take action on petitioners’ application within 45 days after July 3 must be construed as authorization of the desired use.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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