From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Town of Poughkeepsie v. Webb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 8, 1990


Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the petition is dismissed, with costs.

We find that the Commissioner's determination was supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180-181). The petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof by adducing concrete and convincing evidence that the establishment of the facility would result in both an overconcentration of similar facilities in the area and a substantial alteration of the nature and character of the community (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c] [5]; Town of Ramapo v. Webb, 137 A.D.2d 518; Matter of Town of Hempstead v Commissioner of State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities, 131 A.D.2d 681; Matter of Town of Hempstead v. Commissioner of State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities, 121 A.D.2d 388, 389).

The petitioner's contention that Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5) is void for vagueness is without merit. The statute's language is sufficiently clear to apprise administrative officials of the standards they must follow (see, Incorporated Vil. of Old Field v. Introne, 104 Misc.2d 122; cf., Matter of Nicholas v. Kahn, 47 N.Y.2d 24, 31). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Town of Poughkeepsie v. Webb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Town of Poughkeepsie v. Webb

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE, Petitioner, v. ARTHUR Y. WEBB, as…

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

Date published: Jan 8, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
549 N.Y.S.2d 765

Citing Cases

City of Kingston v. Surles

One public official candidly testified that it was this specific community residence which was objectionable…