270 A.D. 824 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1946
Appeal by defendants from an order denying their motion to vacate and dismiss a certiorari order herein on the ground of insufficiency, and on the further ground that the sole remedy to review decisions of the Zoning Board of the Town of Ramapo is provided' for in article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. Respondents’ motion renewed by permission on the argument of the appeal, is granted, without costs, and the appeal is dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Special Term correctly decided that the remedies provided for under section 267 of the Town Law had not been impliedly repealed by section 1283 of the Civil Practice Act. {People ex rel. Hudson-Harlem Co. v. Walker, 282 N. Y. 405-406.) Since the allegations of the petition were sufficient, as a matter of law, to support a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, it was proper to disregard the petitioners’ misdesignation of the proceeding as one in certiorari. {Matter of Hewbrand v. City of Yonkers, 285 N. Y. 164,174-175; Civ. Prac. Act, § 105.) This proceeding was commenced within the thirty-day period required by the Town Law and the defendants were therefore not prejudiced by having the proceeding regarded as one -instituted under article 78. In Matter of Hammier v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead (254 App. Div. 777) the proceeding had not been brought within the thirty-day period prescribed by the
