Matter of Hadland v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton

Matter of Matter of Hadland v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton 2012 NY Slip Op 02877 Decided on April 17, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 17, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
PLUMMER E. LOTT
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2010-12016
(Index No. 48151/09)

[*1]In the Matter of David P. Hadland, appellant,

v

Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Southampton, et al., respondents.




Esseks, Hefter & Angel, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (Stephen R. Angel,
Anthony C. Pasca, and Lisa J. Ross of counsel), for appellant.
Tiffany S. Scarlato, Town Attorney, Southampton, N.Y.
(Kathleen Murray of counsel), for
respondents Zoning Board of Appeals of
Town of Southampton and Michael
Benincasa, as Chief Building Inspector
of Town of Southampton.
Bennett & Read, Southampton, N.Y. (John J. Bennett and
Kimberly A. Judd of counsel), for
respondents Kimco Development of
Hampton Bays, Inc., and Petco Animal
Supplies Stores, Inc.


DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton dated November 5, 2009, which, after a hearing, determined that it was without jurisdiction to review the petitioner's application on the merits as he was not an aggrieved person pursuant to Town Law § 267-a(4), the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton properly determined that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person pursuant to Town Law § 267-a(4) because he failed to demonstrate any legally cognizable interest aside from increased business competition (see Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d 406, 415; Matter of Friedman v Town Clerk of Town of Hempstead, 62 AD3d 699, 700; Matter of Tappan Cleaners v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, 57 AD3d 683, 684). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding (see CPLR 7803[3]).
MASTRO, A.P.J., HALL, LOTT and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court