MATTER OF PLEASANT VALLEY HOME CONSTR., LTD. v. Wagner
Cases that cite this one
56 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Old Court International, Inc. v. Gulotta (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Sullivan v. Town Board of Riverhead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Stone Landing Corp. v. Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- MATTER OF TWIN COUNTY RECYCLING CORP. v. Yevoli (N.Y. 1997)
- Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli (N.Y. 1997)
- Pioneer-Evans Co. v. Garvin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Town of Islip v. Caviglia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Matter of Robert Lee Realty Co. v. Vill. of Spring Valley (N.Y. 1984)
- Green v. Lo Grande (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Robert Lee Realty Co. v. Village of Spring Valley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Circus Disco Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority (N.Y. 1980)
- Mason v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
- Thaler v. New York State Liq. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- Matter of Marcus v. Planning Bd. of the Vil. of Wesley Hills (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Maxver LLC v. Council of the City of N.Y. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Franklin Square Donut System, LLC v. Wright (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck (District Court, S.D. New York 2006)
- Juda Construction, Ltd. v. Spencer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Homes for the Homeless, Inc. v. Board of Standards & Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- SiteTech Group Ltd. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven (District Court, E.D. New York 2001)
- Bower Associates v. Planning Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Home Depot USA, Inc. v. City of Rye (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Church of Jesus Christ v. Planning Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Holbrook Associates Development Co. v. McGowan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
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 the Matter of Pleasant Valley Home Construction, Ltd., Respondent,
v.
Alson Van Wagner et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Pleasant Valley, Appellants.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Nathaniel Rubin for appellants.
James V. Brands for respondent.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.
*1029MEMORANDUM.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Petitioner, would-be developer of a mobile home complex, who appeals by leave of the Appellate Division, seeks only a special use permit, not a variance. A showing of hardship is, therefore, unnecessary (see Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 243-244). Petitioner has established that under the town zoning ordinance, mobile home development is a contemplated and permitted use. This ordinance, of course, does not automatically entitle petitioner to a special permit, but it does estop the zoning board from denying the petition solely on the basis that more mobile homes in the area would be undesirable. The determination that a mobile home complex is an acceptable use for the land has already been made, legislatively, in the zoning ordinance (see id.; cf. Matter of Small v Moss, 279 N.Y. 288, esp 299).
It is true that the ordinance does not deprive the zoning board of discretion to evaluate each application for a special permit. The zoning board has discretion to find, with proper support, that a particular development does not meet the criteria of the special use provisions of the zoning ordinance. A different record, one showing that a particular mobile home project is not desirable under the legislated criteria, or that it is not desirable at a particular place, would require that the administrative determination be upheld (see Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin 11 N.Y.2d 20, 25). On the entire record in this case, however, it is evident, despite the reasons assigned by the Board of Appeals, that petitioner's application was denied not because of any objection peculiar to the proposed development, but because of community pressure directed against allowing any additional mobile home development in the area zoned for mobile homes. The denial was, therefore, impermissible, and must be annulled.
As noted in the detailed opinion by Mr. Justice W. VINCENT GRADY at Special Term, the board retains the power to impose such authentically reasonable conditions to granting the permit as will minimize any undesirable effects the new development might have on the surrounding community (see Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 246, supra).
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.