| Matter of Ip v Village of N. Hills |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02788 [61 AD3d 688] |
| April 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Johnny Ip et al., Appellants, v Village ofNorth Hills et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (A. Thomas Levin of counsel), forrespondent Village of North Hills. Forchelli, Curto, Crowe, Deegan, Schwartz, Mineo & Cohn, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Peter R.Mineo and Judy Simoncic Jacoby of counsel), for respondents Sal Gaudio and StellaGaudio.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the respondent Village ofNorth Hills to hold a public hearing to determine whether the structure on the land of therespondents Sal Gaudio and Stella Gaudio is entitled to a rear-yard setback variance, thepetitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Mahon, J.), entered December 10, 2007, which denied the petition as time-barred and dismissedthe proceeding.
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination of a village zoning board ofappeals must be commenced within 30 days after the determination to be reviewed becomes finaland binding on the petitioner (see Village Law § 7-712-c [1]). Here, thedetermination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Hills, inter alia, granting avariance to the respondents Sal Gaudio and Stella Gaudio, the owners of property adjacent tothat of the appellants, was made on June 10, 2003. The petitioners took [*2]no action until they commenced this proceeding on September 24,2007. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition as time-barred (see Matter of Letourneau v Town ofBerne, 56 AD3d 880 [2008]) and properly dismissed the proceeding. Mastro, J.P.,Skelos, Dillon and Eng, JJ., concur.