Acierno v. New Castle County, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY FRANK E. ACIERNO, Petitioner, v. NEW CASTLE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Delaware; NEW CASTLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE, a department of the New Castle County government; and NEW CASTLE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, an administrative board of the New Castle County government, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 09A-02-005 MMJ Respondents. Submitted: November 9, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009 ORDER Upon Petitioner s Motion for Reargument and Petitioner s Motion to Strike Untimely Response DENIED 1. By opinion dated September 17, 2009, the Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari and affirmed the decision of the New Castle County Board of Adjustment, which upheld the Department of Land Use s determination that petitioner s land development application was not eligible for redevelopment under the Unified Development Code. Petitioner has moved for reargument. 2. The purpose reargument is to permit reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of law.1 Reargument usually will be denied unless the moving party demonstrates that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court. 2 3. Petitioner argues that the Court improperly interpreted the term site. Petitioner asserts that the statutory term possesses a clear and plain meaning and that the unambiguous meaning is contrary to that applied by the Board of Adjustment. 4. In the September 17, 2009, the Court considered the applicable precedent in interpreting the term site. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that 1 Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (1969). 2 Wilmington Trust Co. v. Nix, 2002 WL 356371 (Del. Super.); Whitsett v. Capital School District, Del. Super., C.A. No. 97C-04-032 Vaughn, J. (Jan. 28, 1999); Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 88-JA-118, Ridgeley, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994). 2 the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. 5. Respondents informed the Court that they would not be filing any answer to Petitioner s motion. THEREFORE, Petitioner s Motion for Reargument is hereby DENIED. Petitioner s Motion to Strike Untimely Response is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. ________________________________ The Honorable Mary M. Johnston 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
