Cases

DALIANIS, J., concurring specially. I concur in the result the majority reaches. I disagree with a portion of the majority’s analysis, however, and offer the following in its stead. I agree with the majority that this case requires that we examine the interplay between RSA 79-A:7, IV and V (2003). *183“The starting point in any stat

ZARELLA, J. In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff, Nutmeg Housing Development Corporation, failed to establish aggrievement in that it failed to prove that the defendant, the town of Colchester (town), had overvalued its property for tax purposes. After a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that i

727 S.E.2d 26 (2012) TOWN OF FOREST CITY v. RUTHERFORD R.R. DEVELOPMENT CORP. No. COA11-1567. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. Filed June 19, 2012 Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the adoption of an amendment to the Town of Riverhead Zoning Code is invalid and unconstitutional, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated September 10, 2007, as denied those branches of their motion which were to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) as time-barred and to dismiss the second ca

Galway, J. The respondent, Town of Pelham (Town), appeals the order of the Superior Court (Groff, J.) reversing the town’s denial of the request of the petitioner, Woodview Development Corporation, for an abatement of land use change taxes (LUCT). See RSA 79-A:7 (2003). We reverse. The parties do not dispute the following facts. The petitioner owns two tracts of land in Pelham, which had been

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Same memorandum as in Matter of Presidential Plaza Corp. v Srogi (50 AD2d 717). (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court in proceeding to review tax assessments.) Present —Moule, J. P., Simons, Mahoney, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT Elaine Slobod, J. The Town of Cornwall amended its local zoning law effective June 23, 2005. Among the changes made at that time to the Town’s code, the area on New York State Route 94 at the intersection of Jackson Avenue in the vicinity of the Bethlehem Church, an historic landmark, was up-zoned from one to two acres for single-family residences. On April 12, 2004, s

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that Local Law 2000, No. 3, and Lo*574cal Law 1991, No. 7, of the Town of Monroe are illegal and unconstitutional, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated. December 12, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied its cross motion for summary

Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

1 N.Y.3d 98 (2003) 801 N.E.2d 821 769 N.Y.S.2d 445 TWIN LAKES DEVELOPMENT CORP., Appellant, v. TOWN OF MONROE, Respondent. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued October 21, 2003. Decided November 20, 2003. *99 James G. Sweeney, P.C., Goshen (James G. Sweeney

532 Pa. 45 (1992) 614 A.2d 1128 HARRISTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORP., Appellee v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, et al. Appeal of DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES and Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Attorney General. Appeal of Richard TILGHMAN. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued May 5, 1992. Decided September 21, 1992.

680 S.E.2d 903 (2009) LA COSTA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. TOWN OF NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH. No. COA08-855. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. Filed July 7, 2009. Certification Date July 27, 2009. Cases reported without published opinion Reversed.

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that Local Law 2000, No. 5, of the Town of Monroe is illegal and unconstitutional, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated March 6, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. *576</

958 A.2d 996 (2008) CARDINAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. TOWN OF WINCHESTER ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. No. 2007-849. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Argued: September 17, 2008. Opinion Issued: October 8, 2008. *997 Lane & Bentley, P.C., of Keene (Michael P. Bentley, on the brief and orally), for the petitione

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.

Rup, J. The plaintiff, C.B. Blair Development Corporation, filed this action, pursuant to G.L.c. 41, §8IBB, appealing a decision of the Town of Holden Planning Board (the “Board”) denying his plan of a subdivision of land (the plan). After trial, based upon the exhibits and the credible evidence, I find and rule as follows. SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS OF FACT On July 28, 2000, t

Appeal transferred, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, to the Appellate Division, Second Department, upon the ground that a direct appeal does not lie when questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved (NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [2]; § 5 [b]; CPLR 560l[b] [2]).

134 F.Supp.2d 537 (2001) LEEANDY DEVELOPMENT CORP. and Philip Wolikow, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF WOODBURY, Gary Thomasberger, Individually and as Building Administrator of the Town of Woodbury, Joan Caruso, Individually and as Supervisor of the Town of Woodbury, Dennis G. Lindsay, Individually and as Town of Woodbury Town Engineer, John Keleman, Harry Dobson, James Galvin, and Frank Palermo, Individually and as Councilmen of the Town of Woodbury, De

*249OPINION OF THE COURT Smith, J. The issue before this Court is whether the Town of Amherst Industrial Development Agency (AIDA) and Uniland Partnership violated General Municipal Law § 862 (1) by virtue of moving the accounting firm BDO Seidman, LLP (BDO) from the City of Buffalo to the Town of Amherst. We conclude that section 862 (1) was violated