From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Philipstown Indus. P. v. Town Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 17, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hillery, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the Town Board's denial of the petitioner's application for a temporary special use permit was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 90 N.Y.2d 1000; Matter of Framike Realty Corp. v. Hinck, 220 A.D.2d 501). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly determined that former Town of Philipstown Code § 175-42 et seq. was preempted by the Mined Land Reclamation Law (ECL-23-2701 et seq.), as the former sections of the Town of Philipstown Code directly regulated mining operations ( see, ECL 23-2703; Philipstown Indus. Park v. Town Bd., 247 A.D.2d 525 [decided herewith]).

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Philipstown Indus. P. v. Town Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Philipstown Indus. P. v. Town Board

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PHILIPSTOWN INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC., Respondent, v. TOWN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 17, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 909

Citing Cases

Town of Washington v. Dutchess Quarry & Supply Co.

We reverse. It is well settled that a locality, while not being able to regulate the mining process, may…

Philipstown Indus. P., v. T. Bd., Philipstown

However, those uses could be permitted upon the issuance by the Town Board of a special use permit ( see,…