Opinion
10-05-2016
PEBBLE HILL BUILDING CORP., appellant, v. Paul MADELIK, et al., respondents.
Law Office of Mark E. Nadjar, P.C., Commack, N.Y., for appellant. Cindy Elan–Mangano, Town Attorney, Huntington, N.Y. (J. Edward Gathman of counsel), for respondents.
Law Office of Mark E. Nadjar, P.C., Commack, N.Y., for appellant.
Cindy Elan–Mangano, Town Attorney, Huntington, N.Y. (J. Edward Gathman of counsel), for respondents.
In an action for declaratory relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated April 22, 2014, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied its cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly concluded that, although brought as a declaratory judgment action, the true nature of the instant matter is directed toward review of an agency determination and, therefore, is governed by CPLR article 78 (see Tornheim v. Fiala, 136 A.D.3d 797, 797, 25 N.Y.S.3d 290 ; Spinney at Pond View, LLC v. Town Bd. of the Town of Schodack, 99 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 953 N.Y.S.2d 314 ; Block 3066, Inc. v. City of New York, 89 A.D.3d 655, 656, 932 N.Y.S.2d 130 ; Rose Woods, LLC v. Weisman, 85 A.D.3d 801, 803, 924 N.Y.S.2d 574 ; Town of Riverhead v. County of Suffolk, 78 A.D.3d 1165, 1166, 913 N.Y.S.2d 268 ). The plaintiff, in effect, seeks review of a resolution adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington dated June 17, 2009, requiring the plaintiff, as conditions of final approval of a subdivision map, to both reserve a portion of the property as a conservation area and pay a recreation fee. Since the resolution was filed with the office of the Town Clerk on June 22, 2009, this action, commenced in December 2010, was time-barred (see CPLR 217[1] ; Town Law § 282 ; Leonard v. Planning Bd. of Town of Union Vale, 136 A.D.3d 868, 870–871, 26 N.Y.S.3d 293 ; Rose Woods, LLC v. Weisman, 85 A.D.3d at 803, 924 N.Y.S.2d 574 ; Matter of Preservation Collective v. Town of Monroe, 32 A.D.3d 396, 397–398, 818 N.Y.S.2d 780 ; Matter of International Innovative Tech. Group Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Woodbury, 20 A.D.3d 531, 532–533, 799 N.Y.S.2d 544 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint. In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and DUFFY, JJ., concur.