Shattemuc Yacht Club v. Village of Ossining (Index No. 69917/2017)

Mar 30, 2018

OUTCOME: Court dismissed hybrid Article 78 and declaratory judgment action seeking to assert rights over private marina

Matter of Lake Grove Partners LLC v. Middleton, 29 A.D.3d 794, 814 N.Y.S.2d 741 (2d Dep't 2006)

N/A

OUTCOME: Appellate court upheld lower court's decision

An appellate court agreed with Silverberg Zalantis LLP that the zone changes implemented by the Village of Lake Grove did not require a full environmental impact statement before a SEQRA negative decla ... ration could be issued. In Matter of Lake Grove Partners LLC v. Middleton, the Appellate Division Second Department upheld the lower court decision finding that the Village Board had taken a "hard look" at the potential environmental impacts from the creation of a Business District and was not required to issue a draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS") prior to issuance of a negative declaration and the approval of zoning amendments.

•Lucas v. Board of Appeals of the Village of Mamaroneck, 109 A.D.3d 925 (2d Dep't 2013)

N/A

OUTCOME: Court upheld the zoning board's determination

The Second Department granted the zoning board's motion to reargue and "recalled and vacated" its its prior decision (issued back in March 2012) and a new decision (issued on September 18, 2012).

•Edwards v. Davison, 941 N.Y.S.2d 873 (2d Dep't 2012)

N/A

OUTCOME: The Second Department reversed the lower court and overturned the zoning board's granting of a use variance

•DMAC LLC v. City of Peekskill, 09 civ 5093 (SDNY 2012)

N/A

OUTCOME: The District Court issued sanctions against the City.

Plaintiff brought a Section 1983 action against the City of Peekskill for stopping a real estate development for political reasons after the developers completed a substantial amount of construction. ... As a result of the City's spoliation of evidence (its destruction of emails), Plaintiffs requested sanctions. The District Court ruled that the City was "grossly negligent" and Plaintiffs were entitled to an adverse inference that that the City negligently destroyed e-mails similar in nature to the ones produced and that "said emails would have been favorable to plaintiffs' case." The District Court also awarded Plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees.