190 A.D.2d 854 (1993)

In the Matter of Adrienne White, Appellant, v. Incorporated Village of Plandome Manor et al., Respondents, and Rolly Hawkins et al., Intervenors-Respondents

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

February 22, 1993

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the application to intervene. Intervention in proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 is permitted for "interested persons" (CPLR 7802 [d]) and is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see, Matter of Clinton v Summers, 144 A.D.2d 145; Matter of Elinor Homes Co. v St. Lawrence, 113 A.D.2d 25). The intervenors in this case are the persons who own the premises upon which the subject construction was performed, who obtained the challenged certificate of occupancy for the completed construction, and who will be directly affected by the outcome of this proceeding. Hence, they clearly are "interested persons" within the meaning of the statute, and the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting them to intervene in the proceeding (see, e.g., Matter of Elinor Homes Co. v St. Lawrence, supra). In this regard, the petitioner's claim that the intervention would result in confusion and delay is wholly unsubstantiated by the record and is patently unpersuasive.

Additionally, we agree with the Supreme Court's dismissal of this proceeding pursuant to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies (see generally, Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52, 57; Steinberg v Sea Gate Assn., 118 A.D.2d 558), inasmuch as the challenged determination was subject to review by the Village Board of Appeals (see, Village Law § 7-712 [2]; Matter of Rattner v Planning Commn., 156 A.D.2d 521; Engert v Phillips, 150 A.D.2d 752; Matter of Turner v Town of Grand Is. Bldg. Dept., 97 A.D.2d 980). Accordingly, the petitioner's failure to seek the appropriate administrative remedy bars the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see generally, Matter of Corcella v Seifert, 181 A.D.2d 677).

We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be factually and legally unpersuasive.


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases