Our client, Election Commissioner Erik Haight, was found to not be in contempt of a stipulated settlement of a matter in state Supreme Court, whereupon the plaintiff below appealed to the Appellate Division. The appeal was dismissed in a Decision and Order that held the plaintiff election commissioner (Knapp) lacked standing and capacity to be a proper party to the appeal after she was removed from office. G. Brian Morgan of DPL was on the brief and the motion to dismiss the appeal, of counsel to James Walsh, Esq. for Respondent Commissioner Erik Haight.
G. Brian Morgan was of counsel to David D. Hagstrom, Esq. representing the zoning board of appeals in a proceeding commenced by the town board to annul a series of variances granted for the existence of an existing shopping center. The town attorney of the petitioner commenced the proceeding against the zoning board. A motion was brought on behalf of the zoning board to disqualify the town attorney from litigating the matter and to reverse the town board’s refusal to appoint special counsel on behalf of the zoning board, which was granted by the court. The petitioner discontinued the proceeding.
Our clients, the homeowners, brought an Article 78 proceeding against the State of New York seeking review of the State’s condemnation of a portion of their property for drainage of storm-water, as well as declaratory and permanent injunctive relief. Our firm was successful in obtaining an annulment by the Court of the State’s determination to condemn their property because the State acted in bad faith, as well as a permanent injunction against the State from pursuing the proposed condemnation across our clients’ property.
Our client, a landowner wanting to build a house on the vacant parcel of land within the New York City Watershed, filed an Article 78 petition seeking review of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s denial of his application for a variance from Watershed Regulations concerning the construction of subsurface sewage treatment systems. Our firm successfully obtained a favorable decision from the Court of Appeals holding that the City Department abused its discretion in requiring our client to propose mitigation of possible storm-water runoff, and that the Department’s request that our client provide information on his other real estate holdings “in the immediate vicinity” was too broad. The Court of Appeals remanded the application for a variance to the City Department to consider whether our client would suffer substantial financial hardship in complying with the Watershed Regulations.
Our client, the Town of Putnam Valley, brought an action against a resident, seeking to enjoin the resident from performing construction work without a building permit or from occupying certain premises without a certificate of occupancy. The Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld the Supreme Court’s holding that the Town was not stopped from enforcing its building code despite erroneous issuance of a building permit.