Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Development
Denial of Rezoning
O'Neill Group-Dutton, LLC v. Town Bd. of Town of Poughkeepsie
NYLJ 7/17/17, p. 21, col. 1
Supreme Ct., Dutchess Cty
(Pagones, J.)
In developer's article 78 proceeding challenging the town's denial of its application to rezone property, the town moved to dismiss. The court granted the town's motion, emphasizing the limited judicial authority to overturn legislative zoning determinations.
In 2002, developer purchased a 15-acre site, 3.8 acres of which were located in the Town of Poughkeepsie; the remainder was in the City of Poughkeepsie. Developer proposed to develop 84 residential units on the town portion of the site, but the proposal required rezoning. In 2012, the town board created a new designation, the Waterfront Housing Overlay District (WHOD), which was designed to accommodate developer's unit. Before the developer could build, however, the developer's site had to be rezoned with a WHOD designation. The town planning board issued a positive recommendation, and the town board adopted a resolution accepting developer's site plan. The following month, however, the town board did an about-face and rescinded its resolution. The town board then set a public hearing on the application, and ultimately denied developer's application, citing density, the absence of recreational amenities, inadequate parking and inadequate snow storage, among other reasons. Developer then brought this article 78 proceeding contending that the town board's denial was not supported by substantial evidence.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.