Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed.
To state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the case before us, the plaintiff had to first establish that it had a valid property interest in a benefit that was entitled to constitutional protection at the time the plaintiff was deprived of that benefit ( see, Zahra v. Town of Southold, 48 F.3d 674; Gagliardi v. Village of Pawling, 18 F.3d 188; see also, RRI Realty Corp. v. Incorporated Vil. of Southampton, 870 F.2d 911, 918, cert denied 493 U.S. 893).
On the record before us, we conclude that the plaintiff failed to show that it had a clearly established right to approval of the amended site plan which it claims was wrongfully denied ( see, Dean Tarry Corp. v. Friedlander, 826 F.2d 210). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant enjoys qualified immunity ( see, Natale v. Town of Ridgefield, 927 F.2d 101, 104). The record before us does not establish an equal protection claim against the defendant.
The defendant's remaining contentions are academic in light of this determination.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.