Skip to content

Matter of Green v Town of Ramapo, 2024 NY Slip Op 02816 [227 AD3d 994]

May 22, 2024

Appellate Division, Second Department

[*1]

In the Matter of Yosef Green et al., Appellants,

v

Town of Ramapo et al., Respondents.

Kevin T. Conway, New City, NY, for appellants.

Abrams Fensterman, LLP, White Plains, NY (Robert A. Spolzino and Mark Goreczny of counsel), for respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Ramapo Zoning Board of Appeals dated May 7, 2019, which, after a hearing, granted the application of Connectivity Systems, LLC, for certain area variances, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Thomas P. Zugibe, J.), dated May 13, 2020. The judgment denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Connectivity Systems, LLC (hereinafter the developer), is building a mixed-use development on real property located in the Town of Ramapo. For this purpose, the Town granted the developer a zoning change. The Town of Ramapo Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter the ZBA) subsequently granted the developer’s application for certain area variances. The petitioners commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review that determination. The Supreme Court denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. The petitioners appeal.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioners lacked standing. In order to establish standing, a petitioner must show that they have suffered an injury in fact, distinct from the general public, and that the injury falls within the zone of interests to be protected by the challenged action ( see Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk , 77 NY2d 761, 771-774 [1991]). Standing requirements are an indispensable part of the petitioners’ case, and each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the petitioners bear the burden of proof ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v Common Council of City of Albany , 13 NY3d 297 , 306 [2009]; Tilcon N.Y., Inc. v Town of New Windsor , 172 AD3d 942 [2019]).

Here, the petitioners claim to reside on property adjacent to the property being developed. However, status as a neighbor does not automatically provide entitlement to judicial review ( see Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead , 69 NY2d 406, 414 [1987]). Furthermore, while a leaseholder may have the same standing to challenge municipal zoning action as a landowner ( see id .), the petitioners here have not shown that they are owners or lessees of the adjacent property on which they claim to reside. [*2] The petitioners also failed to demonstrate that granting the variances will cause them actual injury, rather than vague, hypothetical, or speculative injury that is insufficient to confer standing ( see New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello , 2 NY3d 207 [2004]; Matter of Long Is. Bus. Aviation Assn., Inc. v Town of Babylon , 29 AD3d 794 [2006]). Close proximity to the project may give rise to an inference of harm, but standing requires a showing that this close proximity exposes the petitioners to a harm different from the harm to the public generally ( see Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk , 77 NY2d at 774-775; Matter of Parisella v Town of Fishkill , 209 AD2d 850 [1994]). Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the adjacent property on which they claim to reside is not involved in the application before the ZBA that resulted in the challenged determination. Furthermore, none of the variances granted will have a direct effect upon that adjacent property. Thus, the petitioners failed to show any injury different in kind or degree than any injury to the community generally ( see Matter of Colella v Board of Assessors of County of Nassau , 95 NY2d 401, 410 [2000]; Matter of CPD NY Energy Corp. v Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Bd. , 139 AD3d 942 [2016]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

The petitioners’ remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination. LaSalle, P.J., Chambers, Christopher and Taylor, JJ., concur..