Monroe Voiture 111 Memorial Home Inc

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court,
Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered May 29, 2014 in a
proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment, among other
things, dismissed the amended petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding
challenging, inter alia, the determination of respondent City of
Rochester Planning Commission (Planning Commission) approving the
application of respondent Morgan Management, LLC (Morgan), for a
special permit. The special permit allows Morgan to construct an
apartment building on property owned by respondent Monroe Voiture No.
111 Memorial Home, Inc., La Societe Des 40 Hommes et 8 Chevaux (Monroe Voiture), “in association with the overall redevelopment of the
property.” Petitioner is a not-for-profit corporation that owns the
property adjacent to the Monroe Voiture property, which includes the
George Eastman House.
We note at the outset that, although petitioner’s notice of
appeal states, inter alia, that it is appealing from “each and every
part of” the judgment, petitioner contends on appeal only that Supreme
Court erred in dismissing the second cause of action in the amended
petition. Petitioner has thus abandoned any issues with respect to
the remainder of the amended petition (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora,
202 AD2d 984, 984).
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we conclude that the court
properly agreed with respondents that the second cause of action
should be dismissed. Pursuant to Chapter 120, Article XVII of the
Municipal Code of the City of Rochester (Code), the City of Rochester
(City) established Planned Development District (PDD) No. 14, which
includes the property of petitioner and Monroe Voiture. The City’s
intent in establishing PDD No. 14 was “to recognize and permit a
defined area for the delivery of programs and community services
offered by George Eastman House and the Monroe Voiture . . . and to
provide for the orderly growth and development of the properties”
(Code, Ch PDD, PDD No. 14, § [A]). A special permit is required in
PDD No. 14 for “[m]ultifamily dwellings in newly constructed
buildings” (id. at § [C] [1]). Morgan applied for a special permit
for the construction of a three- and four-story, 99-unit multifamily
apartment building. The application further stated that the proposed
project would include, inter alia, the renovation and rehabilitation
of the existing clubhouse on the Monroe Voiture property. Following a
hearing, the Planning Commission found that the proposed project met
the City’s standards for approval of a special permit (see Code § 120-
192 [B] [3] [a] [1]), including that the proposed project would be in
harmony with the goals, standards and objectives of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner commenced this proceeding and the
court, inter alia, dismissed petitioner’s second cause of action
seeking to annul the Planning Commission’s determination. We affirm.