This post was authored by Sebastian Perez, Esq. Patrick Lustig (“Plaintiff”) alleged the City violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments when they determined that no development could be approved on his property and thereby deprived him of all reasonable economic use of his property and amounting to an unlawful taking without compensation. Plaintiff also alleged that the City’s actions constituted denial of equal protection because there were other nearby properties that had been allowed to develop. Commencing on September 9, 2016 and continuing through August ..read more

This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq. The Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld the denial of a special use permit for a gas station based on traffic concerns in the 2023 caseMatter of Chestnut Petroleum Dist., Inc. v. Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Bd., 222 A.D.3d 748 (2d Dept 12/13/23). The case involved an application for a special use permit and site plan approval for the development of a gas station in the Town of Mount Pleasant. The petitioner’s initial proposal included four fueling islands as well as a convenience store and a Dunkin’ Donuts drive-thru, but it revised its ..read more

This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq. The petitioner in Matter of 147-25 N. Assoc., LLC v. New York City Off. of Trials & Hearings, 220 A.D.3d 684 (2d Dept 10/4/23), was the owner of a multiple dwelling in Queens, New York and was issued a summons by the Department of Buildings for allegedly converting dwelling units in the building that were classified as permanent residences into short-term rentals in violation of the city’s administrative code. Following a hearing held before the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, the charges were sustained and the petition ..read more

This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq. In the 2023 case Chestnut Hill NY, Inc. v. City of Kingston, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184157 (NDNY 10/13/23), the District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed claims that challenged the denial of a special use permit for a boarding home that primarily housed disabled individuals. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on their allegations that the permit denial violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), finding instead that the city’s fire safety concer ..read more

This post was authored by Sebastian Perez, Esq. Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. (the “Plaintiffs”) commenced an action against The Genoa Charter Township located in the state of Michigan (the “Defendants”) alleging a violation of their rights under the federal and state constitutions as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) when The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “district court”) dismissed certain claims as unripe and granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. This ap ..read more

This post was authored by Sebastian Perez, Esq. Michael Bermes (“Bermes”) sought relief from a denial of his request to build an ancillary building (the “building”) on a lot he owned over a ridgeline in Summit County (the “County”) where the District Court upheld the Summit County Council’s (the “County”) decision. This appeal followed.  On appeal to the Court of Appeals of Utah (the “Court”), Bermes argued that the County’s decision was both (1) illegal and (2) arbitrary and capricious. To advance his first argument, Bermes alleged that the County incorrectly relied on Snyderville Code S ..read more

This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq. InFederman v. Town of Lorraine, 213 A.D.3d 1220 (4th Dept. 2/3/23), the Fourth Department held that lower court erred in granting summary judgment to the town on the plaintiff’s eminent domain cause of action. The case arose from a dispute over maintenance that the town performed on the road leading to plaintiffs’ home, which the plaintiff contended was an unlawful taking of his property. To be entitled to a grant of summary judgment dismissing the eminent domain claim, the town was required to establish that the road qualified as a “public highway by ..read more

This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq. The plaintiffs were issued fines by the New York City Department of Buildings during the course of their drilling and excavation work at a construction sites. They challenged the fines under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, claiming that city officials had singled them out and discriminated against them and other Asian individuals in the construction industry. The district court ruled in the city’s favor, however, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims of race-based and malice-based selective enforcement. In a prior decision, Hu v. City of New York, 927 F.3d ..read more

This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq. The Fourth Department held in Matter of Friedman v. Town of Dunkirk, 221 A.D.3d 1581 (4th Dept 11/17/23), that the petitioner’s use of her property as a short-term vacation rental was not per se prohibited under the town’s single-family zoning. As the court explained, the zoning board had determined that short-term rentals were not a permitted use in the single family residential  district because it had concluded that a group of transient or temporary tenants did not qualify under the zoning code’s definition of a “family.” This was not the corr ..read more

This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq. The Second Department held that the 30-day time period for challenging a preliminary subdivision approval began to run when the minutes containing the decision were filed with the village clerk. The court further explained that neither the fact that the planning board’s counsel indicated to the petitioners that a written decision would follow, nor the fact that the village clerk did not provide the petitioners with a copy of the duly filed minutes, demonstrated that the petitioners were misled or otherwise affected by any  uncertainty as to the d ..read more