General
In the Matter of Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr., Appellant, v. Charles B. Sullivan et al., Constituting the Planning Board of the Town of Brookhaven, Respondents. Dorothy Warner, Intervenor-Respondent
206 A.D.2d 975616 N.Y.S.2d 288·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1994·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr., Appellant, v Charles B. Sullivan et al., Constituting the Planning Board of the Town of Brookhaven, Respondents. Dorothy Warner, Intervenor-Respondent.
[616 NYS2d 288]
[MAJORITY]
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner’s motion, designated as one for "reargument and renewal”, is more properly considered a motion to vacate the judgment dismissing the CPLR article 78 petition based upon newly-discovered evidence (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). Supreme Court properly denied the motion because petitioner failed to demonstrate that the newly-discovered evidence "would probably have produced a different result” (CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). Further, the evidence that petitioner relies on was a matter of public record in existence at the time of the judgment that could have been discovered in the exercise pf reasonable diligence (see, Graham v Beermunder, 93 AD2d 254, lv dismissed 60 NY2d 630; Mully v Drayn, 51 AD2d 660). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Underwood, Jr., J.—Vacate Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.