MATTER OF MASCONY TRANSP. & FERRY SERV., INC. v. Richmond
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dagro Assoc., LLC v. City of Yonkers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Alfano v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Medford Real Properties v. Town Board of Brookhaven (New York Supreme Court 2008)
- Boardwalk Management Corp. v. Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Kusky v. Town of Islip (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Noghrey v. Acampora (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Cymbidium Development Corp. v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Zagoreos v. Conklin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Hatcher v. Planning Board of Nelsonville (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Alscot Investing Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- East Clinton Developers, Inc. v. Town of Clinton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
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 Mascony Transport and Ferry Service, Inc., Appellant,
v.
Jonathan Richmond et al., Constituting the Planning Board of the Village of Greenport, Respondents, and East End Supply Co., Inc., et al., Intervenors-Respondents.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Richard T. Haefeli and John R. McNulty for appellant.
Robert C. Crimmins and Frank A. Isler for respondents.
William W. Esseks for East End Supply Co., Inc., intervenor-respondent.
Robert W. Tasker for Shelter Island and Greenport Ferry Company, Inc., intervenor-respondent.
Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER.
Order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (71 AD2d 896).
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.