Petitioners bring this proceeding by petition submitted pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, seeking an order of this Court reversing, annulling and setting aside the determination of the respondent City of White Plains Common Council (hereinafter, WPCC), rendered on August 5, 2002, approving the application of respondent Royal Charter Properties-Westchester, Inc., d/b/a New York Presbyterian Hospital (hereinafter, RCPW), for an amended special permit authorizing the construction of a new building upon the grounds of the New York Presbyterian Hospital located at 21 Bloomingdale Road in the City of White Plains, New York. Petitioner Concerned Citizens for Open Space, Inc. (hereinafter, CCOS) is a duly registered New York State not-for-profit corporation whose stated purpose is the protection of the environment of the City of White Plains. The individual petitioners, John D. Edwards, Patricia W. Haskel, Ursula H. Joachim, Brian R. Kornfield, Lynda Pandorf and Norman Pandorf, are residents of the City of White Plains.
In support of the instant application, the petitioners claim that the respondent WPCC’s determination granting the application of respondent RCPW for the subject amended special permit was arbitrary, capricious, illegal, unsupported by the record, in violation of lawful procedure, unreasonable and in excess of its jurisdiction. Specifically, the petitioners allege that (1) the master plan submitted by respondent RCPW in connection with its application seeking approval of the herein challenged amended special permit was insufficient with the meaning of the White Plains Zoning Ordinance ?§6.7.5.10-11, (2) respondent WPCC’s approval of the herein challenged amended special permit application was issued in the absence of full public review in violation of SEQRA, and (3) respondent WPCC’s approval of the herein challenged amended special permit application authorized a proposed use of the subject property which is not permitted in the R1-12.5 Zoning District pursuant to White Plains Zoning Ordinance ?§6.7.5.1.1. Respondents oppose the instant petition and move this Court to dismiss same, arguing that the petitioners lacks the requisite standing to bring the instant proceeding and have failed to state a cause of action.
