Delhi bridge responsibility of town, not village

Supreme Court Justice Molly R. Fitzgerald has ruled that the Woolerton Street Bridge is the responsibility of the town of Delhi, not the village. This case began with an Article 78 filed by the village against the town. Article 78 in this case was used to compel the town to do what they are supposed to do in maintaining the bridge. David Merzif, representing the village cited a similar case involving a bridge in Chestnut Ridge which concluded that a bridge is a span that goes over a stream and the town is responsible for it unless the village voluntarily takes responsibility. Delhi Supervisor Peter Bracci said there will be a special meeting of the Delhi Town Board to discuss the decision and look into starting the appeals process. There is also more debate involving the length of bridge and how it could possibly affect its classification. Lois Ray, chairwoman of the bridge committee, said that the committee is attempting to have the bridge rebuilt to county specifications so that it will become a county bridge, relieving both the town and village of any maintenance responsibility. 

Read full article here.

To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

Syracuse Basketball star may have to resort to Article 78 to get reinstated

Eric Devendorf, a star shooting guard for the Syracuse University Orangemen basketball team may have to file an Article 78 petition to get a one semester suspension overturned.  Devendorf was found to have violated the Syracuse University Student Code when he hit a female student after a traffic incident.  Members of the basketball team were leaving a campus party when they came upon a car driven by Kimberly Smith another student.  Ms. Smith said Mr. Devendorf struck her in the jaw. 

William Sullivan, Devendorf's attorney, said that his client would file an appeal of his one semester suspension on 12/17/08.  If the appeal is not granted Mr. Sullivan said that he would file an Article 78 petition and seek a stay of the suspension during the course of the Article 78 in the hopes Mr. Devendorf continue to play ball until the case is resolved.  Click here for details.

State Liquor Authority decision modified following Article 78

Cris Place v. NY State Liquor Authority  Appellate Division, First Dept  2008 NY Slip OP 09161

The SLA imposed a $1000 bond forfeiture and a $8,500 civil penalty against the Petiitoner after a hearing which found that marijuana use; after-hours drinking; violation of local laws and ordinances and cabaret activity took place at the accused premises.  The First Department ruled that there was no substantial evidence to support the marijuana accusation but the other charges were backed by substantial evidence.  The Court sent the case back the the SLA for reconsideration of the penalty.  The decision can be found here:  www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_09161.htm

Appeal of Southhold Zoning Change Denied

Zupa v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Southhold  Index #29166/06 Appellate Division, Second Department

Zupa appealed Southold's interpretation of the Town Code sect 280-121(A) that the proposed realignment of the dock/marina would not be a change that would render inapplicable the provisions concerning non-conforming uses.  The Court held that the Town Board decision was rational and not arbitrary and capricious.  The appeal was dismissed. Read the decision here:   www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_08748.htm

Article 78 EBook

Download file

Click above to download free Article 78 EBook.

Article 78 to review Atlantic Yards project denied

The Brooklyn Bridge Park Legal Defense Fund brought this Article 78 to review whether the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared the Respondents New York State Urban Development Corporation failed to take into account the potential traffic impacts from the Atlantic Yards Project. The standard of review was whether the detemination was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, of a violation of lawful procedure (CPLR 7803(3).  The Court held that the FEIS did take into account traffic expected to be generated by the project. Additionally, the traffic analysis was reviewed by the NYC DOT.  Finally, the public trust doctrine was not violated by the plan of locating residential housing on the development project.  The full decision can be found here: www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_03641.htm