Supreme Court, Rockland County

Decided on July 7, 2026

Index No. 030272-2026

John P. Collins, Jr., J.

[*1]

The following papers numbered 1- 4 were read and considered on this Petition for a judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules vacating and annulling the decision a Corrected Decision issued by the Town of Ramapo Zoning Board of Appeals entitled "In the Matter of the Application of ZBA-265-244, Prestige Builders USA, LLC, Property at: 10 Meadow Lane, Tax Map Designation: 56.11-3-29" voted upon and passed by the ZBA at a public meeting on November 20, 2025, dated March 2, 2026 and filed with the Town of Ramapo Town Clerk's Office on March 4, 2026 upon the grounds that said decision was illegal arbitrary, and capricious:

PAPERS NUMBERED

Amended Notice of Petition/Amended Verified Petition/Affidavit of Carolyn Worstell/Exhibits 1-7

Answer to Amended Petition/Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Amended Opposition 2

Affirmation of Ira M. Emanuel, Esq./Exhibits A-E/Memorandum of Law in Opposition/Answer 3

Reply Affirmation of Steven N. Mogel, Esq. /Affidavit of Carolyn Worstell 4

Petitioner seeks to vacate and annul a decision of Respondent TOWN OF RAMAPO [*2]ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ("ZBA") as to an application regarding property at 10 Meadow Lane, Tax Designation: 56.11-3-29, which was voted upon and passed by the ZBA at a public meeting on November 20, 2025, dated March 2, 2026 and filed with the Town of Ramapo Town Clerk's Office on March 4, 2026.

This proceeding was initially commenced based upon a December 11, 2025 Decision issued by the ZBA on December 12, 2025, after a public meeting held on November 20, 2025. According to Petitioner, the Decision was amended and superseded by a Corrected Decision dated March 2, 2026, and filed with the Town of Ramapo's Town Clerk on March 4, 2026.

FACTS

Petitioner's Facts

Petitioner, LYDIA E. MARK is a partial owner in fee of property located at 12 Meadow Lane, Monsey, New York, which is property located within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property: 10 Meadow Lane, Monsey, New York, Town of Ramapo Tax Map # 56.11-3-29.

Prestige Builders USA, LLC (hereinafter Prestige) made an application on July 2, 2025 on behalf of Respondent ADLER SC LEGACY TRUST (hereinafter ADLER TRUST) to the ZBA for approximately twenty (20) area variances from the Town of Ramapo zoning codes' bulk tables to subdivide a 23,456 square foot lot located on Meadow Lane, which was improved by a single- family house, into two (2) lots.

According to Petitioner, the two proposed new lots would be less than fifty-nine percent (59%) of the minimum lot size in the R-15A zone and would only meet a small portion of the remaining minimum bulk standards. In addition, the Petitioner contends the proposed division would create one (1) lot that was landlocked. The Petitioner asserts that Respondent ADLER TRUST sought variances so that they could construct a two-family home with an accessory apartment on each of the proposed new lots, creating a total of six (6) dwelling units.

Prestige appeared before Respondent ZBA on November 20, 2025, and a public hearing was held.

Hearing November 20, 2025

According to the submitted hearing transcript Prestige was represented by Ira Emanuel, Emanuel Law, P.C. and appeared along with Rachel Barese, a Civil Engineer from Civil Tec Engineering. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p 3. Emmanuel represented to the ZBA that the neighborhood where 10 Meadow Lane is located is changing from single-family homes on approximately one-third (1/3) of an acre to two (2), three (3) family and multifamily homes. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p 3-4. Specifically, Emanuel stated that the lots directly adjacent to the subject property in the rear that has a multifamily townhouse complex. See NYSCEF Doc. No.44, p 4. The applicant saw the need for additional housing in the area in addition to his financial needs. See NYSCEF Doc. No.44, p 4.

Rachel Barese, the civil engineer, testified that the application was for a two (2) lot subdivision with a two (2) family home and one (1) accessory apartment on each lot, a parking area, a small play area in the front and a play area in the back and a driveway overlapping the [*3]already existing driveway. See NYSCEF Doc. No.44, p. 5. Barese also testified that the applicant was seeking variances for the lot area, the lot width, the side setbacks, total side setback, the rear, the street frontage, the "F.A.R.," a 280 A variance for the back lot since it has no public street frontage and due to the distance from a retaining wall to the property line. See NYSCEF Doc. No.44, p. 5-6.

In support of the application, Emanuel provided a color map prepared using Rockland County's Geographic Information Service System. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 7. Emanuel testified that the density proposed by Prestige and Respondent ADLER TRUST is consistent with the area surrounding the subject property, specifically within the neighborhood. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 9. Additionally, Attorney Emanuel included two (2) emailed letters and two (2) petitions, which he brought to the ZBA's attention. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 39-40.

In response, several members of the public commented, including Petitioner's counsel --Steven Mogel, Esq. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 11. The first two (2) speakers represented the parties to the instant action. Mogel indicated at the public hearing that he was representing "some neighbors for [the] proposed project" and referenced a memorandum he submitted on November 19, 2025, for the ZBA's review. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 11. He later clarified that his clients, Lydia Mark and Chaya Krohn, resided at 12 Meadow Lane and another address he did not know. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 42.

He asserted at the hearing that the proposed project would increase the density of units in the neighborhood per acre by four hundred percent (400%) and referenced the number of units per acre on the surrounding properties. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 12-13. Further, Mogel argued that -- in 2017 -- the owners of 1 Meadow Lane sought an increase in the F.A.R. from .4 to .7, which was denied by the ZBA and was reduced to .45 F.A.R. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 15.

In addition to Mogel, several neighbors spoke in support of the subject application, with two (2) addressing the variances sought and the balance addressing the character of the Adler family, whose trust owns the subject property, or their opinion about helping the Adler family. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 19-25, 28-35. Each of the speakers indicated that they had concerns regarding the over development of the neighborhood and the failure of the applicants to comply with the meaning of a variance as it pertained to zoning. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 25-28, 36- 37.

In response to the testimony, none of the ZBA members asked any questions or made any comments. At the end of testimony in response to a request by the Chairwoman, a ZBA Member, Simon Singer, provided an oral decision based upon the "balancing test." See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 43. Simon Singer stated that prior to addressing the balancing criteria that he had to address two questions: (1) will the subdivision change the neighborhood and (2) whether "two-plus-one family" belong on Meadow Lane. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 44-45.

Singer stated that, considering the lots already on Meadow Lane, the surrounding areas have similar lots to the proposed subdivision and the Town of Ramapo's designation of the zoning as R-15A in 2004 permitted a "two-plus-one" by right. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 45. Further, Singer reiterated that the overall support of the neighbors, excluding the testimony of [*4]personal stories and personal opinions about the owners, demonstrated that the variances proposed by the Respondents are consistent with the current properties in the neighborhood, that multi-family homes are needed in the neighborhood, that no negative effects as to the neighborhood exist and that the use permitted is by right. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 45-46.

Subsequently, Singer addressed the required balancing test. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 46. Singer acknowledged that ADLER TRUST's application was substantial but noted that the request would not have an adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 46-47. Next, Singer noted that the self-created factor was a "tough balancing factor" since a person seeking a variance is usually making the application due to a self- created issue. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 47. However, Singer asserted that there were special circumstances: (1) that the parties had lived in the house for forty-five (45) years; and (2) that they were seeking to improve the property in a way that was consistent with the neighborhood changes. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 47-48.

ARGUMENTS

Petitioner

In the Amended Petition, the Petitioner contends that the ZBA did not properly employ the balancing test required pursuant to Town Law § 267-b(3).

Petitioner asserts that the ZBA -- in granting Respondent ADLER TRUST's application -- did not rationally consider whether an undesirable change would occur that would cause a character change in the neighborhood because of the proposed variances. Petitioner also asserts that ZBA member Singer improperly bifurcated his reasoning when he made contradicting statements: (1) that the Respondent could convert the subject property from a single family unit to a two (2) family unit with an accessory dwelling on each of the proposed new lots "by right" without referencing the minimum bulk standards; and (2) that the lot sizes which Respondent proposed to be created were consistent with the lots within the vicinity of the subject property -- without referencing any evidence that the use proposed was consistent with similar sized lots in the immediate vicinity.

According to Petitioner, ZBA member Singer's reference that the proposed use of the subject property was permissible "by right" was incorrect since that standard is only applicable when the use proposed meets all relevant zoning requirements which includes, but is not limited to, minimum lot size, maximum FAR, minimum setbacks and road frontage.

Petitioner argues that the proposed use does not meet all the zoning requirements. Further, Petitioner asserts that the "by right" rationale set forth by ZBA member Singer is logically untenable because it would allow any application for use permitted in a zone regardless of the suitability of the property and would automatically deem that the proposed change would not cause any undesirable change in a neighborhood since the variances are permitted "by right." In contrast, the Petitioner avers that the proper standard set forth in Town Law § 267-b(3) requires an individualized assessment of a potential undesirable change of the granting of area variances as to a specific property -- which did not occur at the November 2025 hearing.

The Petitioner argues that even if ZBA member Singer was correct that the proposed lot size is consistent with lot sizes in the vicinity, there was no evidence before the ZBA that those similarly sized lots were used for three (3) units per lot as proposed by Respondent ADLER TRUST. Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that, consistent with the affidavit of Senior Planner [*5]Carolyn Worstell, the project as proposed by Respondent ADLER TRUST is not consistent with the character of development on Meadow Lane.

Petitioner also contends that the November 2025 hearing was deficient and the ZBA's determination was arbitrary and capricious for failure to properly consider the balancing test factors. Petitioner argues that, during the November 2025 hearing, the ZBA failed to consider whether the benefits sought by Respondent ADLER TRUST as a result of the proposed variances could be obtained by means other than the variance. Also, Petitioner avers that the ZBA failed to consider whether the proposed variances would have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood other than ZBA member Singer stating in conclusory fashion: "no." Petitioner notes that there were no questions, commentary, discussions or evidence presented as to this factor. Similarly, Petitioner argues that the ZBA provided an "irrational" statement in support of their finding that the ADLER TRUST's difficulties were not self-created; and that the Respondent wanted to improve the property and that the neighborhood had "changed."

Moreover, the Petitioner argues that the transcript demonstrates that ZBA member Singer admitted in a conclusory statement, without any evidence, that a grant of ADLER TRUST's variances is "definitely substantial" but altered that finding in the March 2026 "Corrected Decision" to read that the ZBA determined that the variances were not substantial.

Respondent TOWN OF RAMAPO ZBA

The ZBA contends that their determination was rational and supported by the record. The ZBA asserts that they held a public hearing during which they considered community input and weighed the statutory factors including neighborhood character and density. After weighing those statutory factors, the ZBA determined that the facts before the Board weighed in favor of granting the requested variances. The ZBA also argues that the fact that ZBA member Singer found -- on the record -- that the variances were substantial does not render their determination irrational.

In support of their opposition, Respondent ZBA advances four (4) points in addition to their argument that the ZBA's determination was rational: (1) that based upon Colin Realty LLC v Town of North Hempstead, 966 NYS2d 501 [2d Dept 2013], the ZBA was within its authority to rely on their knowledge of the neighborhood surrounding the subject property and the existence of prior similar variances; (2) that based upon, inter alia, Matter of Berk v McMahon, 29 AD3d 902 [2d Dept 2006], the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the ZBA where the record contains conflicting evidence (such as differing views regarding neighborhood character and density); (3) that based upon, inter alia, Matter of Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342 [2000], judicial review of a ZBA decision is limited to the administrative record before the Board at the time the decision was made and that expert submissions not presented to the ZBA must be disregarded.; and (4) the Corrected Decision does not alter the ZBA's determination and instead clarifies the recitation of the variances.

Respondent ADLER TRUST

In opposition, ADLER TRUST contends that the record from the November 2025 public hearing demonstrates that the ZBA engaged in the required balancing test as established by Town Law § 267-b(3). ADLER TRUST, referencing the November 20, 2025, transcript, contends the testimony and evidence in support of their application for variances was "substantial." According to Respondent, the evidence before the ZBA included a map demonstrating the [*6]change of the surrounding neighborhood from single-family homes to denser development and a narrative summary that identified eight (8) nearby lots with similar density to that sought by Respondent for which the ZBA could infer required similar variances to those sought by the Respondent.

ADLER TRUST asserts that the Petitioner's submission focused only on the immediate fourteen (14) homes on Meadow Lane, many of which were owned by Petitioner or her family, in effort to limit the neighborhood to the discreet road instead of the entire community. In support of their opposition, ADLER TRUST contends that ZBA member Singer applied all five (5) parts of the statutory balancing test and noted that some of the factors were weighed against ADLER TRUST, finding that the requested variances were substantial. In addition, ADLER TRUST notes the record demonstrates that a roll call vote was done after ZBA member Singer spoke which allowed other ZBA members to provide any disagreement or further commentary and no member exercised their right.

ADLER TRUST also argues that the record before the ZBA is similar to the record recently upheld by the Appellate Division, Second Department in Carella v Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Ramapo, 235 AD3d 974 [2d Dept 2025]. ADLER TRUST notes that the Carella Court determined that the ZBA's granting of similar variances was not arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, relying on Carella, ADLER TRUST contends that the ZBA's determination as to their variance application must be upheld.

ADLER TRUST further argues that the materials submitted by Petitioner outside the administrative record cannot be considered by this Court as sought by Petitioner. Specifically, ADLER TRUST contends that Petitioner submitted the Worstell Affidavit -- which contains material in paragraphs seventeen (17) and nineteen (19) that was not submitted to the ZBA. Since Petitioner is seeking to enlarge the record with the submission of additional information, ADLER TRUST seeks to have the additional information struck from the record.

LAW/ANALYSIS

A special proceeding under Civil Practice Law and Rules § 78 is available to challenge the actions or inaction of agencies and officers of state and local government. See Matter of Gottlieb v. City of New York, 129 AD3d 724, 725 [2d Dept 2015]. Civil Practice Law and Rules § 7803 provides a petitioner with a manner to challenge "whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion." Civil Practice Law and Rules § 7808(3). "The determination is considered final if it is definitive and causes an actual, concrete injury to the aggrieved party." Kaufman v. Town of New Castle, 116 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2d Dept 2014].

Generally, in a Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 78 proceeding, the court must examine whether the action taken by the agency has a rational basis. The court may overturn the administrative action where it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts and if the court concludes that the determination is supported by a rational basis, the court must sustain the determination even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency. See In the Matter of Wooley v New York State Department of Correctional Services, 15 NY3d 275 [2010]; See also Halpert v. Shah, 107 AD3d 800, 801 [2d Dept 2013]. This court cannot interfere with this administrative decision unless there is no rational basis for the practice of discretion or the action complained about is arbitrary and capricious. See In the Matter of Pell v. Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974].

In reviewing this administrative determination, the court must ascertain whether there is a rational basis for the action in question or whether it was "illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion." Matter of Marcus v Planning Bd. of the Village of Wesley Hills, 199 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2d Dept 2021]. An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts. See In the Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 12 NY3d 424 [2009] citing Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 281 [1974]. Additionally, "[a] determination is rational if it has some objective factual basis, as opposed to resting entirely on subjective considerations such as general community opposition." Matter of Palmer v Town of New Windsor Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 226 AD3d 688, 689 [2d Dept 2024]. This court may not itself make the determination of eligibility and impose its factual findings upon the agency. See King v. City of Newburgh, 84 AD2d 388 [2d Dept1982]. In demonstrating that administrative actions were taken arbitrarily or in bad faith, the petitioner bears a heavy burden of proof for which conclusory allegations and speculative assertions will not suffice." See Matter of Harpur v. Cassano, 29 AD3d 964, 965 [2d Dept 2015]; See Matter of Knight v. County of Nassau, 27 AD3d 470, 471 [2d Dept 2006)].

"Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion." Matter of Mtejko v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 77 AD3d 949, 949 [2d Dept 2010]; See Matter of 153 Mulford Assoc., LLC v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of E. Hampton, 205 AD3d 1019, 1021 [2d Dept 2022]. Therefore, "the determination of a zoning board should be sustained upon judicial review if its not illegal, has a rational basis, and is not arbitrary and capricious." Id citing Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]; See Matter of Seaview Assn. of Fire Island, NY, Inc. v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 221 AD3d 717, 718 [2d Dept 2023]. A determination of a zoning board is rational when it is grounded in some "objective factual basis." Carella v Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Ramapo, 235 AD3d 974, 975 [2d Dept 2025].

A zoning board considering applications for area variances is required to "take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant." Town Law § 267b[3][b]. Further, a zoning board is required to consider:

(1) Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance;

(2) Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;

(3) Whether the required area variance is substantial;

(4) Whether the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and

(5) Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily precluse the granting of the area variance.

Town Law § 267-b[3][b].

Based upon the transcript of the public hearing, the Court finds that the ZBA's determination had a rational basis and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. See Matter of Florida Historical Society v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Village of Florida, NY, 197 AD3d 1313, 1315- [*7]136 [2d Dept 2021]. The hearing transcript clearly demonstrates that ZBA member Singer, on behalf of Respondent ZBA, considered ADLER TRUST's variance application and engaged in the required balancing test set forth in Town Law § 267-b[3][b] while also individually considering each of the relevant statutory factors. See Matter of Rausman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Ramapo, 225 AD3d 705, 707 [2d Dept 2024]. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 45.

In contrast to Petitioner's assertions, the transcript demonstrates that the evidence supported the ZBA's conclusions, as ZBA member Singer addressed each factor and included specific references to properties in the entire neighborhood surrounding the subject property. ZBA member Singer delineated each factor, beginning first by noting that the type of variances sought by ADLER TRUST already existed in the neighborhood. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 46. Singer also specifically addressed financial issues, as they relate to the variances, and found that they are more properly related to use variances, which were not part of ADLER TRUSTS's application. Nonetheless, the ZBA determined that either way -- ADLER TRUST's finances did not alter the ZBA's consideration of the application. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p. 46.

A searching review of the transcript demonstrates that even if the variances proposed by ADLER TRUST were substantial, and the difficulties stated by Respondent were self-created, the ZBA thoroughly considered whether the requested variances would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or otherwise result in a detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community as required by Town Law § 267-b[3]. See Matter of Rausman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Ramapo, 225 AD3d at 706; See also Matter of Nunnally v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of New Windsor, 217 AD3d 950, 953 [2d Dept 2023]. Singer noted, on behalf of the ZBA, that the addition of the proposed lots and buildings would not change the character of the neighborhood, and in fact would align the property with those lots that already exist in the neighborhood. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 44, p.48.

Moreover, the record demonstrates that -- before the oral arguments on November 20, 2025 -- the ZBA had Petitioner's arguments, as set forth in the Worstell Affidavit, through a packet submitted by Petitioner's counsel. At the time of the November 20, 2025 public hearing, the ZBA acknowledged receipt of Petitioner's arguments and documentary evidence. In addition, Worstell testified before the ZBA -- giving the ZBA ample ability to consider her testimony and submission.

The evidence demonstrates that the ZBA properly balanced and weighed the appropriate statutory factors and based its findings on objective facts contained in the record. The ZBA's determination to grant Respondent ADLER TRUST's variance application was rational and neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the relief sought in the Petition is denied, and the Petition is dismissed.

Dated: July 7, 2026

New City, New York

HON. JOHN P. COLLINS, JR., J.S.C.