New York State Court of Appeals Upholds Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner’s Decision on Edgemont Incorporation By Issuing a Denial of a Motion for Leave to Appeal

eHezi Archives, Community, Governance, Greenburgh, NY, History, Law, New York State, People, Politics, Westchester County, NY Leave a Comment

The Feiner Report

Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner

GREENBURGH, NY —February 19, 2019 — The New York State Court of Appeals denied a motion for leave to appeal in the matter of Robert B. Bernstein, et al., Appellants v Paul Feiner  regarding the efforts to incorporate Edgemont as a village within the town.  By denying the motion to appeal the courts have upheld the decision of the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division, supporting  the Town Supervisor’s interpretation of the statute. was correct The Appellate Division ruling is below.  The Court of Appeals is the highest court in NYS.

“It is my sincere believe that we are stronger, better and more efficient as one town.  And we will continue to work very hard to best meet the needs of every constituent group and neighborhood in the town. As always I am available to speak to anyone regarding any issues or concerns by calling my cell phone: 438 1343 or 989 1545 (office) or home: 478-1219.”

PAUL FEINER

Greenburgh Town Supervisor

The Lawsuit:

APPELLATE DIVISION SUPREME OF COURT FINDS EDGEMONT INCORPORATION PETITION DID NOT COMPLY WITH LAW

Release Date: October 17, 2018

Today the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled that the Petition to incorporate the Edgemont section of Town as the Town’s 7th village was invalid. The Court ruled that my conclusion that the petition for incorporation did not include an accurate list of the regular inhabitants of the proposed village and failed to include a description of the territory to be incorporated that was sufficient to identify the location and extent of the proposed village with “common certainty”, as required  by Village Law § 202-2(1)(c)(2), was not illegal, based on insufficient evidence, or contrary to the weight of the evidence.

MATTER OF BERNSTEIN v FEINER

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Paul Feiner, Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, dated May 5, 2017, which, after a hearing, determined that a petition for the incorporation of the proposed Village of Edgemont does not comply with the requirements of Village Law article 2, and action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the petition for the incorporation of the proposed Village of Edgemont complies with the requirements of Village Law article 2, Paul Feiner appeals, Nancy Blank, Thomas Blank, Robert P. Cerrato, Lloyd Cort, Mona Fraitag, Joan Gardner, Glenroy Gordon, Tracy C. Mairs, John M. Martin, Edward Massena, Martin Payson, Helene M. Orce, Sylvia Simon, Donald Siegel, Joanne F. Siegel, William Stanton, Alice Strauss, and Steven J. Willard separately appeal, and Janet Linn and Hugh Schwartz separately appeal, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Susan Cacace, J.), dated February 1, 2018. The judgment granted the petition, annulled the determination, declared that the petition for the incorporation of the proposed Village of Edgemont complies with the requirements of Village Law article 2, and directed the Town Clerk of the Town of Greenburgh to take all necessary actions to schedule an election to determine the matter of incorporation of the proposed Village of Edgemont.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment, inter alia, declaring that the petition for the incorporation of the proposed Village of Edgemont does not comply with the requirements of Village Law article 2.

In this hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory relief, the Supreme Court granted the petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of the Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, which determined that a petition for the incorporation of the proposed Village of Edgemont does not comply with the requirements of Village Law article 2, and declared that the petition for incorporation complies with the requirements of Village Law article 2. The Town Supervisor found that the petition for incorporation failed to include a description of the territory to be incorporated that was “sufficient to identify the location and extent of such territory with common certainty,” as is required by Village Law § 2-202(1)(c)(1). That finding was not illegal, based on insufficient evidence, or contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Barnard v St. Lawrence, 44 AD3d 1037, 1038; Matter of Incorporation of Vil. of Viola Hills, 129 AD2d 579, 580).

The Town Supervisor also found that the petition for incorporation did not include an accurate list of the regular inhabitants of the proposed village, as is required by Village Law § 202-2(1)(c)(2). That finding also was not illegal, based on insufficient evidence, or contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Bernard v St. Lawrence, 44 AD3d at 1038; Matter of Baker v Heaney, 15 AD3d 577, 578; Matter of Elevitch v Colello, 168 AD2d 681, 682; Matter of Luria v Conklin, 139 AD2d 650; Matter of Incorporation of Vil. of Viola Hills, 129 AD2d at 580).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the proceeding, and declared that the petition for incorporation does not comply with the requirements of Village Law article 2 (see Village Law § 2-210[1]; Matter of Bernard v St. Lawrence, 44 AD3d at 1038; Matter of Baker v Heaney, 15 AD3d at 578; Matter of Elevitch v Colello, 168 AD2d at 682; Matter of Luria v Conklin, 139 AD2d at 650; Matter of Incorporation of Vil. of Viola Hills, 129 AD2d at 580). Since this is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment, inter alia, declaring that the petition for the incorporation of the proposed Village of Edgemont does not comply with the requirements of Village Law article 2 (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334).

RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur. ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court

Clerk of the Court

 

 

 

eHeziNew York State Court of Appeals Upholds Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner’s Decision on Edgemont Incorporation By Issuing a Denial of a Motion for Leave to Appeal

Leave a Reply

This comment will be displayed anonymously. Your name and email address will not be published.

Comments that are off topic will be removed. If you want a topic to be covered, email me at: ehezi@hush.com

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.