18 unchanged sentences
On October 28, 2024, the Company received a notice of appeal filed by the petitioners in this proceeding seeking to appeal the court’s dismissal of the Article 78 petition, citing as grounds for appeal “whether the court erred in denying the petition and dismissed the Article 78 proceeding, and any and all other issues which may arise upon further review of the record on appeal”.
−Removed: On November 12, 2024, the petitioners filed a notice of motion to renew and reargue, seeking to have the court direct the respondents to undertake a supplemental environmental impact statement to address retaining of storm water at the property being developed in light of a recent storm, and to annul the resolution approving the preliminary site plan.
+Added: On November 12, 2024, the petitioners filed a notice of motion to renew and reargue, seeking to have the court direct the respondents
+Added: to undertake a supplemental environmental impact statement to address retaining of storm water at the property being developed in light of a recent storm, and to annul the resolution approving the preliminary site plan.
On March 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County issued an order denying the appellants motion to stay enforcement of the order, pending hearing and determination of appeal.
On March 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County issued an order denying the Petitioners motion to renew and reargue.
−Removed: Pleadings filed in the Article 78 Proceeding may be accessed through a link (and related instructions) to the New York State Unified Court System which appears on the Company’s website at https://www.gyrodyne.com.
+Added: On April 16, 2025 the Petitioners filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the March 17, 2025 order denying the appellants motion to stay enforcement of the order dismissing the Petition pending the appeal.
+Added: On April 28, 2025 the Petitioners perfected their appeal on the original Petition.
+Added: The Petitioners’ memorandum of law largely repeats their earlier position and arguments, which the Supreme Court previously found to be an insufficient basis for overturning the Planning Board’s determinations.
+Added: Gyrodyne filed its response to the Appeal on July 25, 2025 and the Town submitted its reply to the Appeal on July 28, 2025.
+Added: Pleadings filed in the Article 78 Proceeding may be accessed through a link (and related instructions) to the New York State Unified
+Added: Court System which appears on the Company’s website at https://www.gyrodyne.com.
In addition to the foregoing, in the normal course of business, Gyrodyne is a party to various legal proceedings.
3 unchanged sentences
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.