A New York court has upheld building permits issued for a modular home in the Town of Highlands, dismissing a neighbor's legal challenge. The ruling affects the property owners involved and sets a precedent for similar disputes over building permits.
In the case of Matter of Kopald v. Town of Highlands N.Y., decided on September 23, 2026, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled against Deborah Kopald, who owns property adjacent to the site where the Tonneson family plans to build. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of following proper legal procedures when contesting building permits.
The dispute began when the Town of Highlands issued building permits to David Tonneson, Deborah Tonneson, and Jaidin Paisley-Tonneson for the construction of a modular home on their property. Kopald, concerned about the impact of the construction on her own property, initiated two related proceedings in an attempt to annul the permits and stop the construction.
The case reached the Appellate Division after Kopald's initial petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court of Orange County. The lower court found that Kopald failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before taking legal action. This means she did not follow all necessary steps within the town's administrative process before seeking judicial intervention.
The Appellate Division, consisting of Judges Betsy Barros, Lillian Wan, James P. McCormack, and Phillip Hom, upheld the lower court's decision. The judges stated, "The Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceedings/actions for failure to exhaust administrative remedies." They also noted that the court acted within its discretion by precluding Kopald from filing further actions regarding the Tonneson property without prior court approval.
The ruling indicates that individuals challenging building permits must first pursue all available administrative options before seeking a court's intervention. This decision reinforces the legal principle that courts prefer to have disputes resolved at the administrative level when possible.
Additionally, the court denied the Tonnesons' request for attorneys' fees and costs incurred during the appeal process. This aspect of the ruling highlights the court's discretion in determining whether to award such fees in cases involving disputes over building permits.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate parties involved. It serves as a reminder to property owners and neighbors that there are established procedures for contesting building permits. Those who wish to challenge such permits must ensure they have followed all necessary steps before resorting to legal action.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in New York and potentially other jurisdictions. It emphasizes the importance of administrative processes in land use and development cases, which can affect how property owners approach disputes in the future.
As for what’s next, it is unclear if Kopald plans to appeal this decision to a higher court. There are no related cases pending at this time. However, the ruling sets a clear precedent that could guide future disputes over building permits in the region.