Case Name: In the Matter of Harbor Park Realty, LLC, Appellant, v. Paul Mandelik, as Chairman of the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-04-30
Citations: 116 A.D.3d 1040
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Harbor Park Realty, LLC, Appellant, v Paul Mandelik, as Chairman of the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 1040–1040

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Harbor Park Realty, LLC, Appellant, v Paul Mandelik, as Chairman of the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington, et al., Respondents.
[983 NYS2d 899]

Opinion:
— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alla, to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington, dated June 15, 2011, which approved the site plan of the respondents John Notaro, R.A., Notaro Grupp Associates, 1033 Fort Salonga, LLC, and 1033 Fort Salonga Road, also known as Bottles & Bargains, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Malia, J.), dated September 7, 2012, which, upon a decision of the same court (Cohalan, J.) dated June 19, 2012, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
A local planning board has broad discretion in deciding applications for site-plan approvals, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the board's action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Hejna v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Amityville, 105 AD3d 846 [2013]; Matter of Kearney v Kita, 62 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2009]). Here, the determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington had a rational basis, and was not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Hejna v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Amityville, 105 AD3d at 846; Matter of Kearney v Kita, 62 AD3d at 1002).
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.