From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Town of Kent v. Maul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 1999
262 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted May 3, 1999

June 14, 1999

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, dated December 31, 1997, which, after a hearing, overruled the petitioner's objections to the establishment of a community residential facility at Lot #28, Deer Hill Road, in the Town of Kent, New York.

Carl F. Lodes, Carmel, N.Y., for petitioner.

Eliot L. Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Thomas D. Hughes and Mary Lynn Nicolas of counsel), for respondents.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION JUDGMENT

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

While the notice sent by the respondents to the petitioner Town of Kent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 43.14(c)(1), provided erroneous information as to the existence of other community residential facilities located within the Town, the Town was aware of the existence of the facilities. Moreover, both before the site-selection hearing, and at the hearing, the respondents informed the Town of the errors contained in the notice, and apprised the Town of the existence of all the facilities within the Town which the notice had failed to mention. In light of the foregoing, the Town failed to establish that it was prejudiced in its ability to prepare for the hearing, and the notice function was fully served notwithstanding the defect contained therein ( see, Matter of Town of DeWitt v. Surles, 187 A.D.2d 969, 970; Matter of Town of Brunswick v. Webb, 145 A.D.2d 844, 845).

We further find that the Commissioner's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The Town failed to demonstrate that the establishment of the subject community residential facility would result in an over concentration of the same or similar facilities so as to substantially alter the nature and character of the area ( see, Matter of Jennings v. New York State Off. of Mental Health, 90 N.Y.2d 227; Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v. Maul, 231 A.D.2d 580; Matter of Cedar Grove Civic Homeowners Assn. v. Maul, 225 A.D.2d 618).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Town of Kent v. Maul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 1999
262 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Town of Kent v. Maul

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TOWN OF KENT, petitioner, v. THOMAS A. MAUL, etc., et…

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

Date published: Jun 14, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 134

Citing Cases

Village of Wappingers Falls v. Maul

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination of the Commissioner of the State of New York…