Opinion
August 4, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint ( see, CPLR 3025 [b]) to assert a claim under Town Law § 268 (2) since the basis for the amendment was patently lacking in merit ( see, McKiernan v. McKiernan, 207 A.D.2d 825; Board of Mgrs. v. Zucker, 190 A.D.2d 636; Rothfarb v. Brookdale Hosp., 139 A.D.2d 720). Specifically, the plaintiffs, both residents of the City of Yonkers, where the subject parcels are situated, had no standing to seek relief under the Town Law since the City of Yonkers is governed by the General City Law ( see, Curtis v. Eide, 19 A.D.2d 507; McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes §§ 76, 232). Furthermore, we reject their contention that the Town Law is applicable to the City of Yonkers by virtue of the fact that the General City Law does not contain a provision similar to Town Law § 268 (2) enabling private citizens to maintain an action to enjoin an alleged zoning violation ( see, Allen Avionics v. Universal Broadcasting Corp., 118 A.D.2d 527, affd 69 N.Y.2d 406). In any event, the plaintiffs also failed to satisfy the requirement that a proceeding under Town Law § 268 (2) be commenced by "any three taxpayers of the town" ( see, Guzzardi v Perry's Boats, 92 A.D.2d 250).
Thompson, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.