“The Three-Step Lens” – PF Dev. Group, LLC v. Town of Brunswick and the Refined Test for CPLR 3211(a)(7) Motions in Declaratory-Judgment Zoning Challenges

1. Introduction

PF Development Group, LLC v. Town of Brunswick (2025) presented New York’s Appellate Division, Third Department with a high-stakes land-use dispute. The plaintiffs – a development company and its sole member – sought to invalidate Local Law No. 2022-08, a zoning amendment that restricted multifamily housing density in the Town of Brunswick. After Supreme Court (McNally, J.) granted the Town’s pre-answer motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) and declared the local law valid, the developers appealed. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Supreme Court skipped a critical analytical step.

At the heart of the decision lies a sharpened procedural rule: courts confronted with CPLR 3211(a)(7) motions in declaratory-judgment actions must move through the “three-step” rubric derived from Matter of Kerri W.S. v. Zucker. Failure to honor each step – particularly the second, which probes for unresolved factual disputes – renders any declaration premature.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint and simultaneously declared Local Law No. 2022-08 valid.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding:
- Step 1 (jurisdiction): Satisfied – the pleading stated a cognizable claim for declaratory relief.
- Step 2 (existence of factual issues): Not satisfied – allegations of bias, coercion, and “reverse spot zoning” created fact questions precluding summary resolution.
- Because Step 2 failed, the court should have denied the 3211(a)(7) motion without declaring rights.
The order was reversed “in full,” the Town’s motion denied, and the action remanded for ordinary discovery and disposition.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Third Department’s opinion weaves together several strands of precedent:

Matter of Kerri W.S. v. Zucker, 202 A.D.3d 143 (4th Dept 2021) – Articulated the three-step framework for CPLR 3211(a)(7) in declaratory actions. PF Dev. Group treats Kerri W.S. not as optional guidance, but as a binding methodology that Supreme Courts must observe.
Dodson v. Town Bd. of Rotterdam, 182 A.D.3d 109 (3d Dept 2020) – Confirmed that compliance of a zoning law with Town Law § 265 can be a purely legal issue, yet still acknowledged the necessity of factual development where bias or spot-zoning is alleged.
Tilcon N.Y., Inc. v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 87 A.D.3d 1148 (2d Dept 2011) – Emphasized that “reverse spot zoning” usually presents mixed questions of fact and law; relied upon to find that plaintiffs’ allegations might survive dismissal.
Peck Slip Assoc. LLC v. City Council of N.Y., 26 A.D.3d 209 (1st Dept 2006) – Sets out the two-prong test for reverse spot zoning: site-specific and inconsistent with a comprehensive plan. PF Dev. Group clarifies that if the “inconsistent” prong is absent (as here, because plaintiffs abandoned the challenge), the claim fails as a matter of law.
Collard v. Inc. Village of Flower Hill, 52 N.Y.2d 594 (1981) – Classical authority on spot zoning, underscoring that isolated departures from a comprehensive plan may be struck down.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. The Three-Step CPLR Framework
• Step 1 – Jurisdictional Sufficiency: Does the complaint plead a real controversy suitable for declaratory relief? (Yes).
• Step 2 – Factual Disputes: Are there unresolved facts that preclude summary judgment? The Court accepted plaintiffs’ allegations of Planning Board chair bias and coercion as plausible; thus factual development is required.
• Step 3 – Declaration on the Merits: Only if Step 2 is negative (no factual disputes) may a court “deny” the 3211 motion yet immediately declare rights. Here, Step 2 failed, so Step 3 was never reached.

2. Reverse Spot Zoning Claim
The panel noted that plaintiffs did not appeal Supreme Court’s separate holding that Local Law 2022-08 was consistent with the Town’s comprehensive plan. As a result, the second prong of the spot-zoning test collapsed, defeating that claim as a matter of law. The instructive nuance: even when some causes of action fall, the presence of other fact-laden claims (here, bias/retaliation) may still preclude dismissal.

3. Bias & Retaliation Allegations
The opinion treats allegations that a Planning Board chair (an adjacent landowner) orchestrated both procedural delays and substantive law changes to thwart plaintiffs’ project as potentially viable. Whether such bias is sufficiently direct to taint legislation emanating from the Town Board remains to be explored – but that is “not amenable to resolution as a matter of law at this procedural stage.”

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

Procedural Clarification – Establishes binding authority in the Third Department that trial courts must proceed through all three Kerri W.S. steps. A premature merits declaration will be reversed.
Strategic Guidance for Litigants – Plaintiffs challenging municipal enactments now have a sharper tool to survive early dismissal if they can articulate plausible factual disputes (e.g., bias, unequal treatment).
Municipal Lawmaking – Town Boards must anticipate discovery into the legislative genesis of zoning amendments when credible bias claims are raised. Transparency in record-building becomes paramount.
Zoning & Comprehensive Plans – Confirms that consistency with a comprehensive plan remains a silver bullet against spot-zoning challenges, but does not immunize a law from claims of retaliatory motivation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

CPLR 3211(a)(7) – A procedural rule allowing early dismissal for “failure to state a cause of action.” In declaratory-judgment cases, it performs double duty: screening and offering an accelerated merits resolution if no facts are in dispute.
Declaratory Judgment – A court ruling that clarifies legal rights without awarding damages. Useful for zoning disputes where parties need clarity on the validity of a law.
Reverse Spot Zoning – Allegation that a municipality down-zoned (or otherwise restricted) only a select parcel to impede development, contrary to its broader land-use plan.
SEQRA Positive Declaration – A finding that a project may result in significant adverse environmental impacts, triggering a more extensive environmental impact statement.

5. Conclusion

PF Dev. Group v. Town of Brunswick crystallizes the procedural roadmap for courts addressing motions to dismiss declaratory-judgment challenges to zoning amendments. The decision reinforces that:

The three-step CPLR 3211(a)(7) test is mandatory, not aspirational.
Even when a plaintiff’s substantive theory is partially undermined (e.g., consistency with a comprehensive plan), ancillary fact questions such as bias or retaliation can keep the case alive.
Municipal defendants should expect deeper judicial scrutiny where private animus or personal interest is alleged to have infiltrated legislative processes.

Beyond its immediate effect in Brunswick, the ruling will likely influence how New York trial courts manage early motions in land-use cases, encouraging fuller factual development before sweeping declarations are issued. In a broader sense, the judgment fortifies procedural fairness by ensuring that potential abuses of zoning power receive a day in court rather than a threshold dismissal.