Gordon v. Planning Bd. of the Town of E. Hampton

205 A.D.3d 719

165 N.Y.S.3d 739 (Mem)

In the Matter of Gregory GORDON, appellant,

v.PLANNING BOARD OF the TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, et al., respondents.

2019–00749

Index No. 1713/18

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—February 10, 2022

May 4, 2022

Matthews, Kirst & Cooley, PLLC, East Hampton, NY (David M. Kirst and Brian E. Matthews of counsel), for appellant.

The Law Offices of Tiffany S. Scarlato, PLLC, Sag Harbor, NY, for respondents Green Hollow Tennis Club, Inc., Green Hollow Tennis Club, and Green Hollow Real Estate, LLC.

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton dated February 28, 2018, granting an application of the respondents Green Hollow Tennis Club, Inc., Green Hollow Tennis Club, and Green Hollow Real Estate, LLC, for site plan approval and a special use permit, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph A. Santorelli, J.), dated December 10, 2018. The judgment denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner owns property located next to a tennis club owned by the respondents Green Hollow Tennis Club, Inc., Green Hollow Tennis Club, and Green Hollow Real Estate, LLC (hereinafter collectively the Green Hollow respondents). The Green Hollow respondents acquired the property, which is located in an A3 residential district, in 2012. In 2013, the Green Hollow respondents submitted an application to the respondent Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton (hereinafter the Planning Board) for site plan approval and a special use permit to legalize a number of improvements on the property and a children's tennis camp. In a determination dated February 28, 2018, the Planning Board granted the application for site plan approval and a special use permit. The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the Planning Board's determination. In a judgment dated December 10, 2018, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

A local planning board has broad discretion in reaching its determinations, and judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the challenged action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Marcus v....