| Matter of Deerpark Farms, LLC v Agricultural & Farmland ProtectionBd. of Orange County |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01647 [70 AD3d 1037] |
| February 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Deerpark Farms, LLC,Appellant, v Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board of Orange County et al.,Respondents, and Orange County Legislature, Respondent. |
—[*1] David L. Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Michael Rabiet of counsel), forrespondents Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board of Orange County and Wayne A.Decker, as Legislator for the 13th District of Orange County, and respondent-respondent OrangeCounty Legislature. Drake, Loeb, Heller, Kennedy, Gogerty, Gaba & Rodd, PLLC, New Windsor, N.Y. (AdamL. Rodd and Jennifer E. Wright of counsel), for respondents Gary W. Flieger, as Supervisor ofTown of Deerpark, and Town of Deerpark.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of theOrange County Legislature dated August 7, 2008, which adopted a resolution denying thepetitioner's application to have certain property that it owned in the Town of Deerpark includedin Agricultural District No. 2 in the County of Orange, the petitioner appeals, as limited by itsbrief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County(McGuirk, J.), dated March 4, 2009, as confirmed the determination, denied the petition insofaras asserted against the Orange County Legislature, and dismissed the proceeding insofar asasserted against the Orange County Legislature.
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to therespondent-respondent.
In reviewing an administrative determination, a court must ascertain whether there is arational basis for the action in question, or whether it is arbitrary and capricious (see Matterof Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale &Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]; see also Matter ofPeckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]). An action is arbitrary and capricious whenit is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts (see Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, WestchesterCounty, 34 NY2d at 231). Thus, "[i]f the court finds that the determination is supported by arational basis, it must sustain the determination even if the court concludes that it would havereached a different result than the one reached by the agency" (Matter of Peckham vCalogero, 12 NY3d at 431; see Kurcsics v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 451,[*2]459 [1980]). Consequently, "courts must defer to anadministrative agency's rational interpretation of its own regulations in its area of expertise"(Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d at 4311).
Here, the petitioner failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the administrativedetermination made by the Orange County Legislature (hereinafter the Legislature) in adopting aresolution denying its application for the inclusion of its property in Agricultural District No. 2in the County of Orange (hereinafter the district) lacked a rational basis or was arbitrary andcapricious (see generally Matter of Stanton v Town of Islip Dept. of Planning & Dev., 37AD3d 473 [2007]).
The rational, expressed concerns of the Legislature regarding the adverse impacts on theTown of Deerpark and upon the parcels of real property neighboring the real property owned bythe petitioner if the application were approved were not sufficiently addressed or refuted by thepetitioner. Moreover, there was a rational basis to the concern expressed by the Legislature that,by including the petitioner's property in the district, the petitioner's projected increase in thenumber of hogs kept on the subject property would contravene the local zoning law and create apotential health hazard. Therefore, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Legislature'sdetermination was rational, and not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, WestchesterCounty, 34 NY2d at 230-231).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly confirmed the determination, denied the petitioninsofar as asserted against the Legislature, and dismissed the proceeding insofar as assertedagainst the Legislature. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.