| Matter of Friedman v Town Clerk of Town of Hempstead |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03725 [62 AD3d 699] |
| May 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Patricia Friedman et al.,Appellants, v Town Clerk of Town of Hempstead et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No.1.) In the Matter of Patricia Friedman et al., Appellants, v Town Clerk of Town of Hempstead etal., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Goldstein & Rodriguez, LLP, Hempstead, N.Y. (Lawrence J. Goldstein and Mary EllenObrien of counsel), for respondent Taxi La Paz, Inc., in Proceeding No. 1 and respondent NewYork Taxi, Inc., in Proceeding No. 2, and Joseph J. Ra, Town Attorney, Hempstead, N.Y. forrespondents Town Clerk of the Town of Hempstead and the Town of Hempstead in bothproceedings (one brief filed).
In related proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the TownClerk of the Town of Hempstead dated May 8, 2007, which granted the application of Taxi LaPaz, Inc., for six [*2]taxicab licenses and to review adetermination of the Town Clerk of the Town of Hempstead, also dated May 8, 2007, whichgranted the application of New York Taxi, Inc., for six taxicab licenses, (1) the petitioners inproceeding No. 1 appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, NassauCounty (Brandveen, J.), dated March 20, 2008, which granted that branch of the motion of TaxiLa Paz, Inc., in which the Town Clerk of the Town of Hempstead and the Town of Hempsteadjoined, which was to dismiss the petition in that proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) and7804 (f) based upon the petitioners' lack of standing, and dismissed that proceeding, and (2) thepetitioners in proceeding No. 2 appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the same courtdated March 25, 2008, which granted that branch of the motion of New York Taxi, Inc., in whichthe Town Clerk of the Town of Hempstead and the Town of Hempstead joined, which was todismiss the petition in that proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) and 7804 (f) based uponthe petitioners' lack of standing, and dismissed that proceeding.
Ordered that the orders and judgments are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The petitioners are a private citizen and several existing taxicab corporations in the Town ofHempstead who challenged, in two separate CPLR article 78 proceedings, the determinations ofthe Town Clerk of the Town of Hempstead (hereinafter the Town Clerk) to issue several taxicablicenses to Taxi La Paz, Inc., and New York Taxi, Inc., respectively. The Supreme Court grantedthose branches of the motions of Taxi La Paz, Inc., in proceeding No. 1 and New York Taxi,Inc., in proceeding No. 2, joined in by the Town Clerk and the Town, which were to dismiss thepetitions in both of those proceedings on the ground that the petitioners lacked standing, andconsequently dismissed both proceedings. We affirm.
In order to establish standing, the petitioners must show that they would suffer direct injurydifferent from that suffered by the public at large and that the injury asserted falls within thezone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted by the provision at issue (see Matter of Graziano v County ofAlbany, 3 NY3d 475, 479 [2004]). The petitioner Patricia Friedman, a private citizen,lacked standing because she failed to demonstrate that she would suffer a direct harm from theTown Clerk's determinations to issue the challenged taxicab licenses. The record furtherestablishes that the remaining petitioners failed to sufficiently demonstrate that they "sustainedspecial damage, different in kind and degree from the community generally" as a result of thedeterminations (Matter of Rockland Hospitality Assoc. v Paris, 302 AD2d 597, 598[2003]). The only potential injury suggested in the record is an increase in business competition,which, considered alone, is insufficient to confer standing (see Matter of Sun-Brite Car Washv Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d 406, 415 [1987]; see also Matter of C.L.B. Check Cashing vMcCaul, 5 AD3d 593 [2004]). Moreover, the petitioners failed to establish that thedeterminations in question caused them an injury within the zone of interests protected by theTown ordinance at issue, which articulates the requirements for issuing taxicab licenses (see Matter of C.L.B. Check Cashing vMcCaul, 5 AD3d 593 [2004]; see also Matter of Kemp v Zoning Bd. of Appeals ofVil. of Wappingers Falls, 216 AD2d 466 [1995]). Absent demonstration of some injuryother than potential economic harm caused by increased business competition, the petitionerslacked standing to challenge the determinations, and the proceedings were properly dismissed.Mastro, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.