TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Berens v. Planning Board

In the Matter of Abraham Berens v. Planning Board of the Village of Sands Point

Berens v. Planning Bd., 101 A.D.2d 838 (1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 14, 1984
Citations
101 A.D.2d 838475 N.Y.S.2d 2971984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18506

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Village of Sands Point, dated October 25, 1982, which granted to The Community Synagogue final approval of a certain subdivision, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Harwood, J.), dated April 14, 1983, which denied their petition. 11 Judgment affirmed, with costs. I The standard for judicial review of a determination by a village planning board is whether the determination “is illegal, in whole or in part” (Village Law, § 7-740). Upon review of the record, it is clear that the Planning Board’s determination herein was not illegal but rather was based upon a reasonable interpretation of the term “high water mark”, that is, the mean of all the high tides over a certain period of time (see, generally, Borax Cons, v Los Angeles, 296 US 10 ). Moreover, the record indicates that the customary surveying practice in the Village of Sands Point was to calculate the location of the high-water mark by reference to the mean high-water line. “To give effect to such uniform practice is not * * * to delegate arbitrary powers to surveyors to determine property lines; rather it is the obverse, namely, to recognize that property lines are fixed by reference to long-time surveying practice” (Dolphin Lane Assoc, v Town of Southampton, 37 NY2d 292, 297 ). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Borax Consol., Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10 (1935) 158
Dolphin Lane Associates, Ltd. v. Town of Southampton, 333 N.E.2d 358 (N.Y. 1975) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list