Bennett and Read has achieved substantial success in protecting and advancing our clients’ real property, business and zoning rights before both the municipal agencies and in the Court system. While our policy is to avoid litigation if possible, often times, it is necessary. Many times, clients are forced to litigate against those who seek to overturn favorable land use decisions we have obtained for them. Clients are also, at times, forced to litigate to enforce and/or protect property rights which are called into question or challenged by neighbors, homeowners’ associations, estates, municipalities, special interest groups, etc.
Among the many cases we have successfully litigated are the following: (citations for these cases are available upon request)
Group for the South Fork v. Planning Board. The firm obtained a judgment dismissing an attempt by an environmental group to upset a subdivision approval for a 36-lot subdivision. The Court held that the owner’s subdivision’s design, for which the firm had obtained all necessary approvals, was appropriate and that a public access trail could not be required.
Bacholer and Westhampton Civic Association v. Planning Board. Here the firm obtained a judgment for a landowner dismissing an attempt by a neighbor and an environmental group to upset a 52-lot subdivision approval we had obtained for our client. The Court held that there was no need for the landowner to prepare an environmental impact statement and that the subdivision design we had obtained approval for was appropriate.
Downes v. Boye. Bennett and Read obtained a judgment dismissing an attempt by an adjoining neighbor to upset a property owner’s construction project. Although commenced within the applicable statute of limitations by the neighbor, the Court agreed that equity prohibited the neighbor from maintaining the action.
Shinnecock Nation v. Planning Board. The firm obtained a judgment dismissing numerous adjoining property owners’ attempts, on an environmental and archeological ground, to upset a large lot subdivision approval that we had obtained for our client. The Court held that the environmental claims were time-based and there were no archeological concerns that had not been addressed during Agency review.
Thek v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Dolphin v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Zaniewski v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of
We Lead the Hunt and Morly Real Estate v. Adler. The firm obtained a judgment dismissing two real estate brokers’ claim that our client owed a commission. The Court found that there had not been a meeting of the minds among the parties and that in any event, the listing agreement language prevented recovery for the brokers.
Doyle & Doyle v. Rush
The firm obtained a judgment overturning the Town of
Pellicane v. North Star The firm defeated a bank’s summary attempt to foreclose on a mortgage held on our developer-client’s property. Despite language in the loan agreement prohibiting such attempts, we were able to demonstrate that the subsequent actions taken by the bank gave rise to different terms, more favorable to our client, the borrower.
Byington v. Harris The firm obtained a judgment
Monahan v. Hampton Point The firm obtained a judgment holding that our client’s community’s dock facility was allowed both under the terms of an existing easement over the Plaintiff’s property as well as by our client’s continued adverse use.
Katsonis v. McNamara The firm obtained judgment on behalf of our client dismissing a judgment landowner to establish restrictive rights over a private road.
Moss v. DEC and Robertson The firm obtained a judgment for our client dismissing the neighbor’s attempt to stop our client’s approved dredging project.
Bond v. Redlus The firm obtained a judgment for our client overturning the East Hampton Zoning Board’s attempt to deny a wetlands permit, despite having granted similar permits to others.
Seidler v. Zoning Board of Appeals The firm obtained a judgment on behalf
of our client overturning
Grobow v. Town of
NER v. Town of
Dicastro v. Altamare et al. The firm obtained a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim of malpractice and finding that our client, an attorney, had properly represented his client, the Plaintiff, at a real estate closing.