MATTER OF EMMETT v. Town of Edmeston
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bikur Cholim, Inc. v. Village of Suffern (District Court, S.D. New York 2009)
- Matter of Sullivan v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Mamakating (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- U.S. Bank N.A. v. 1702 Dean, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Matter of A&F Scaccia Realty Corp. v. New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Ferrara v. Jerome Zisfein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Janiga v. Town of W. Seneca Zoning Bd. of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Soldatenko v. Village of Scarsdale Zoning Bd. of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of TAC Peek Equities, Ltd. v. Town of Putnam Val. Zoning Bd. of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- MatterofAyudaReFunding,LLCvTownofLiberty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Ayuda Re Funding, LLC v. Town of Liberty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Ayuda Re Funding, LLC v. Town of Liberty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Mahinda v. Board of Collective Bargaining (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Romeo v. New York State Department of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Powers v. Groodt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Board of Standards (N.Y. 2005)
- Wittenberg Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. Town of Woodstock Planning Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Petitioners’ claims are directed at a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) determination granting a variance. Petitioners cannot invoke the “relation back” doctrine (see CPLR 203 [b]) to avoid dismissal for failure to join the ZBA, a necessary party (see CPLR 1001, 1003). Use of the “relation back” doctrine requires “unity of interest” between the party in the proceeding and the nonparty (see Mondello v New York Blood Ctr.—Greater N.Y. Blood Program, 80 NY2d 219, 226 [1992]). Petitioners’ claim that the Town and the ZBA are united in interest must fail because a town and a zoning board of appeals are independent of each other where, as here, the ZBA is acting in its “administrative capacity independent from the Town Board” (Matter of Commeo, Inc. v Amelkin, 62 NY2d 260, 266 [1984]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.