Hudson Ridge zoning classification and intervention appeal
The appeals court affirmed a judgment annulling Cortlandt’s zoning-board determination and requiring a hospital classification for a proposed short-term residential substance-use treatment program. A community group sought to intervene and appealed as a nonparty.
In the Matter of Hudson Ridge Wellness Center, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Cortlandt, Respondent. Citizens for Responsible Hudson Institute Site Development, Inc., Nonparty Appellant.
Appellate Division, Second Department
2026 NY Slip Op 02112
The verified ruling
April 8, 2026
Historical decision; current case status is not established.
Why it matters
The hospital classification affected the zoning route for a proposed use of seven existing buildings in a residential district. The decision also explains why a group with broader development concerns was not entitled to join this narrow court proceeding.
What the court decided
The September 24, 2020 judgment was affirmed with costs. The panel upheld the denial of intervention and separately denied the petitioners’ request to dismiss the appeal as academic.
What remains unresolved
This historical ruling does not establish present case status, later agency decisions, other project approvals, construction or facility operations. Complete pleadings and later orders have not been verified for this account.
Read our full report →Original court document
April 8, 2026 decision and order — Hudson Ridge zoning appeal
Complete three-page court PDF, including the separate decision and order on motion.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · April 8, 2026
Appeal 2020-09024 · Trial index 1167/20 · 3 pages
Historical April 8, 2026 decision; this document does not establish current case or project status.
On the record
Events described in the linked official opinion. Background and court actions are identified in each entry.
- Recorded in the opinion
First code-enforcement determination
The Town’s code-enforcement director determined that the proposed project was not a hospital under the Town Code.
Why it matters: The opinion describes the classification that led to the zoning dispute.
Official source ↗ - Recorded in the opinion
Second code-enforcement determination
A second determination also classified the proposal as not a hospital for Town zoning purposes.
Why it matters: The opinion says that classification required a use variance or zoning amendment rather than an area variance.
Official source ↗ - Recorded in the opinion
Zoning board confirms classification
After a hearing, Cortlandt’s zoning board effectively confirmed the code-enforcement determinations.
Why it matters: The petitioners challenged this specific determination in the Article 78 proceeding.
Official source ↗ - Recorded in the opinion
Intervention denied
Supreme Court in Westchester County denied the community group’s motion to intervene as a respondent.
Why it matters: The group was not admitted as a party to the zoning-review proceeding.
Official source ↗ - Recorded in the opinion
Trial court adheres after reargument
The trial court granted reargument but adhered to its denial of intervention.
Why it matters: Reconsidering the request did not change the intervention ruling.
Official source ↗ - Recorded in the opinion
Zoning determination annulled
Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the January 15 determination and remitted the matter for a determination that the proposal was a hospital under the Town Code.
Why it matters: This was the judgment the community group appealed.
Official source ↗ - Recorded in the opinion
Academic-appeal motion deferred
The appellate court held in abeyance the request to dismiss the appeal as academic and referred it to the panel hearing the appeal.
Why it matters: The motion was deferred for the panel, not granted at that point.
Official source ↗ - Recorded in the opinion
Judgment affirmed; separate motion denied
The appellate panel affirmed the judgment with costs, upheld the denial of intervention and denied dismissal of the appeal as academic.
Why it matters: The hospital-classification judgment remained intact; the opinion does not establish every project approval or current operations.
Official source ↗
What comes next
Further reporting would require later court orders and zoning or permitting records. No upcoming court date is verified in this historical source package.
No upcoming court date is verified in this case guide.
Sources & scope
Official April 8, 2026 Hudson Ridge appellate opinion ↗
- Historical ruling only: coverage as of April 8, 2026; the official publication is corrected through June 10, 2026.
- Underlying pleadings, opposition and material exhibits have not been independently captured for this report; competing positions are described as summarized in the opinion.
- No later orders, current docket, subsequent permits, construction or operating status are verified by this source package.