People v Anmar Realty, LLC

[*1] People v Anmar Realty, LLC 2010 NY Slip Op 50423(U) [26 Misc 3d 144(A)] Decided on March 9, 2010 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 9, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., MOLIA and LaCAVA, JJ
2009-29 W CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Anmar Realty, LLC, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of North Castle, Westchester County (Robert J. McGoey, J.), rendered November 13, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of failure to obtain site development plan approval.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, the accusatory instrument is dismissed, and the fine, if paid, is remitted.

After a nonjury trial, defendant was found guilty of violating North Castle Town Code § 213-34 by storing limousines on certain premises without site development plan approval. This ordinance reads, in relevant part:
"[N]o . . . use shall be established or changed, other than for one single-family dwelling or a special permit use approved in accordance with the procedures specified in Article VII of this chapter, except in conformity with a site development plan approved and endorsed by the Planning Board with its date of approval . . ."

We agree with defendant that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to prove its guilt. There was no evidence that limousine storage on the premises was first "established" at any point other than before the ordinance was enacted, and the ordinance does not provide that site development plan approval is required in connection with a use established before the ordinance was enacted. Furthermore, the testimony did not establish that there was at any point the type of "change[ ]" of use for which conformity with an approved site development plan would have been required. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the accusatory instrument dismissed. In light of our disposition, we reach no other issue.

Nicolai, P.J., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 09, 2010