New York Zoning and Municipal Law Blog

The Appellate Division Second Department held in the case Overton v. Town of Southampton that a town board is authorized to create the position of police commissioner as chief administrative officer of the police department by local law. The court determined that the local law creating the position of police commissioner was not barred by the Civil Service Law provision requiring that a town maintain the position of chief of police. Here the chief of police kept his position but the local law requires the chief to report to a single police commissioner.

The court noted it had previously held that nothing in the Civil Service Law prevents a local government from requiring that the chief report to other local officials. Further, Town Law section 150(2) authorizes a town board to delegate supervision over the police department to a board of police commissioners. The court found that the Town properly invoked its authority under Municipal Home Rule Law section 22 to supersede the provision of Town Law permitting a board of commissioners and instead create the position of police commissioner by local law.

The Court of Appeals held, for purposes of allocating costs of New York’s “one-call” system for locating underground pipes, cables wires etc. before excavating, a water district created by Town Law is not a municipality. In Jericho Water District v. One Call Users Council, Inc. the Court held that a water district is therefore not exempt from contributing to the cost of maintaining the one-call system.

General Business Law section 761 provides for maintaining the one-call system with cost being shared among operators of underground facilities, except “municipalities and authorities that operate underground facilities and any operator of underground facilities that provides water service to less than four thousand customers.” The Jericho Water District was created pursuant to Town Law section 190 with the commissioners elected rather than being appointed by the Town Board. The court noted that various statutes define municipality either narrowly to include only counties, cities, towns, villages and school districts, or more broadly to also include specialized government units like a water district. However, the provision of the General Business Law at issue does not include a definition of municipality.

The court found that both general usage and the General Construction Law (which defines “municipal corporation”) would apply a more narrow definition, which would not include a water district as a municipality. While the General Construction Law defines municipal corporation rather than municipality the court construed the terms as synonymous. It therefore concluded, absent a definition in the specific statute to be applied, the narrow definition in the General Construction Law applies as “exceptions to generally applicable statutory provisions should be strictly construed…”

The New York Court of Appeals ruled this week, in a case involving a contested annexation of land by one municipality from another that an informal petition by the residents of the area to be annexed was inadequate. In Matter of the City of Utica v. Town of Frankfort the Court found that the practice of the appellate divisions of waiving special elections in certain instances violated the clear mandate of Article IX § 1 (d) of the New York State Constitution which provides that annexation may not take place "until the people, if any, of the territory proposed to be annexed shall have consented thereto by majority vote on a referendum."

The Court concluded that the special election must be held "no matter how few eligible voters there are or how superfluous such an election might be."

The Westchester County Planning Department has posted a new Web Page which it hopes will be a planning tool for local communities and assist in regional planning. The site states: "[w]hether you are a planner or a concerned resident, you will find tools on these web pages that assist in understanding your community, defining its character and envisioning the future."

The site (http://www.westchestergov.com/w2025.htm) contains links to all 43 Westchester municipalities and data on each municipality, with the intention that additional information will be added. Claimed to be the first site of its kind in the State of New York, it will be interesting to see if it is utilized and its impact on planning in the County.

An action under 42 USC §1983 may not be maintained when the plaintiff had other meaningful remedies. The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the lower court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendants in Hughes Village Restaurant, Inc. v. Village of Castleton-On-Hudson. The Court found that the plaintiff could have brought a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the officials who forced plaintiff to vacate an apartment house as a result of certain building and fire code violations.

The plaintiff claimed that by requiring that the building be vacated the municipal officials caused a situation which resulted in pipes freezing and the destruction of the property. If the damages resulted from established procedure due process requires that there be a hearing procedure available before deprivation of property rights. The Court found that the closure resulted from random unauthorized acts rather than established municipal procedure. Therefore, it concluded the question for the Court is whether there was a “meaningful post deprivation remedy” for the plaintiff. The Court held a CPLR article 78 proceeding provides such a remedy as “a CPLR article 78 proceeding could have challenged the alleged wrongful closure of plaintiff’s building, incidental to which it could have claimed damages for the destruction that allegedly resulted….” Finally, the Court found that the failure of the plaintiff to bring such a proceeding “does not undermine our determination.”

The New York Court of Appeals held that the Freedom of Information Law carries the presumption of access to records. In reversing the holding of the Appellate Division and remitting the matter for a factual determination, the Court held in Matter of Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine that the Suffolk County Clerk, which claimed the requested documents were exempt from disclosure, “carries the burden of demonstrating that the exemption applies to the FOIL request.”

Data Tree is in the business of providing property records electronically and had requested that the County Clerk supply copies of various public land records from 1983 to the present, in an electronic format. When the Clerk failed to respond within five days, Data Tree treated this as a de facto denial and made an administrative appeal. The County Attorney denied the appeal citing three grounds (1) the request would require rewriting data which the Clerk is not required to do, (2) there would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy due to the volume and commercial nature of the request and (3) the records are otherwise available for copying individually in the Clerk’s Office. The determination was upheld by the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division.

The Court held that unless a specific exemption applies the records must be made available. After noting that the exemptions must be “narrowly interpreted” the Court agreed that the Appellate Division had engaged in improper burden shifting. It found that the burden is on the Clerk to prove an exemption applies not upon the applicant to prove an exemption does not apply.

Finding that the exemption under Public Officers Law section 87 (2)(b)(iii) for sale of mailing lists used for commercial or fund raising purposes did not apply, the Court remitted the matter for findings of fact on the other issues. The Court noted that questions existed as to whether the privacy exemption might apply because some records may contain personal information. In addition, the Court held that “an agency has no obligation to accommodate a request to compile data in a preferable commercial electronic format when the agency does not maintain records in such a manner.” Conflicting affidavits raised the question of whether the current records could be transferred electronically. Yet, the Court also held that “simple manipulation of the computer necessary to transfer exiting records should not, if it does not involve significant time or expense, be treated as creation of a new document.”

In a case of first impression, the New York Court of Appeals ruled today that an open space restriction which appears solely on a subdivision map but is not otherwise recorded in land records is binding upon subsequent purchasers of the property. In O’Mara v. Town of Wappinger the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: “Is an open space restriction imposed by a subdivision plat under New York Law §276 enforceable against a subsequent purchaser, and under what circumstances?”

The New York Court of Appeals held that such an open space restriction “when filed in the Office of the County Clerk pursuant to Real Property Law §334, is enforceable against a subsequent purchaser.” The property in question had been subdivided in 1963 and the plat had a notation indicating there was an open space restriction. It was then purchased by the Plaintiffs in 2000 at a tax sale. At the time of acquiring title, a title insurance policy was issued which did not disclose the open space restriction, which was only on the plat and not part of a separately recorded instrument. A survey was performed after purchase in order to obtain approvals for construction. Although the surveyor apparently observed the open space notation on the original subdivision plat he did not note it on the survey. Permits were issued and construction nearly completed on a house when the new building inspector discovered the open space notation and stopped work.

The Plaintiffs unsuccessfully brought a number of claims in federal court which resulted in certification of the question to the Court of Appeals. Their position was that the reservation of open space to the benefit of the Town was effectively a conveyance of an interest in real property which required recording in the County Clerk’s Office under Real Property Law §291, in the same manner as a deed. Plaintiffs argued that absent such a recording they were not, as subsequent purchasers, placed on notice and should not be bound by the restriction.

The Court of Appeals held the open space reservation was not a conveyance and therefore did not meet the criteria for requiring separate recording under §291 of the Real Property Law. It further noted the purchasers “should have searched the County Clerk’s property records until it found the subdivision plat that created its parcel.” This case should serve as a warning to title companies and purchasers of real property of the need to review all filed maps for notations that may restrict the use of the property.

In a comprehensive review of the capacity and standing of one municipality to sue another over local zoning, the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Matter of Village of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo, held that villages have the capacity to sue a town over a local law enacting a zoning amendment. Yet the Court also found their standing is limited to SEQRA and General Municipal Law compliance rather than the local law’s consistency with a comprehensive plan.

The Town had adopted a zoning amendment by local law which permitted adult student housing. The law applied to four parcels of land near or adjacent to the boundary of four Villages located in the Town. The four villages and two individuals commenced a combined Article 78/declaratory judgment action challenging the local law, and subsequent actions which incorporated the local law. The lower court dismissed the action on a cross motion by the Town finding lack of capacity to sue and/or lack of standing on each of the causes of action. The Appellate Division modified.

First, the Court noted that Village Law specifically authorizes Villages to sue and be sued. The Town had argued that Town Law Section 264 provides that a village may not challenge a Town’s zoning in court. The Court distinguished a zoning amendment adopted pursuant to Town Law from a case such as this with a local law enacting a zoning regulation under Municipal Home Rule Law. The court found that Municipal Home Rule Law did not similarly restrict a challenge by a village.

More importantly the Court noted that SEQRA had been adopted and implemented after both the provisions of Town Law and Municipal Home Rule Law. The Court held that an abutting municipality as an interested agency (rather than an involved agency which automatically has standing) had the same right to challenge a SEQRA determination as an individual, although the test of standing is somewhat different.

In analyzing the standing of the Villages the Court found that while mere proximity was not enough by itself to create standing, the proposed development on the border of the Villages was substantial and could have a significant detrimental impact. In this case there was a claim that the Villages share much of their infrastructure with the Town. Noting that SEQRA specifically seeks to protect community character the Court held the “power to define community character is a unique prerogative of a municipality acting in its governmental capacity”. Therefore the Court held the Villages had standing under SEQRA to challenge the Town’s actions. In addition the Court found standing to enforce General Municipal Law provisions relating to procedural requirements for adoption of local laws. But the Court found the Villages had no interest in enforcing the procedural requirements related to the adoption of the zoning under Municipal Home Rule Law or with respect to compliance with the Town’s comprehensive plan finding “they are beyond the bounds of the mutuality of restriction and benefit that underlies the comprehensive plan requirement. The matter was remitted to the lower court for a determination on the merits of the causes of action that survived.

The Appellate Division Second Department recently held that the failure to file a timely notice of claim, as required by the General Municipal Law, should not be excused in the case of Narcisse v. Village of Central Islip.

The Court noted that General Municipal Law section 50-e requires that within 90 days of the event giving rise to a tort claim a party making such a claim must file a notice of claim with the municipality. The purpose is to provide the municipality a timely opportunity to investigate the claim. However, if there is a failure to file such a notice the law allows a party to seek leave of the court to file a late notice. The party seeking leave of the court must address certain factors such as a reasonable excuse for failing to file, lack of prejudice to the municipality and most particularly whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the occurrence.

The Court denied this application finding that the municipality had no knowledge of the occurrence and the petitioner had failed to demonstrate there would be no prejudice to the municipality. In addition, the petitioner had not sought legal advice until the 90 day period had expired and the Court found that ignorance of the law is no excuse for failing to comply.

The Appellate Division found that a condemnation proceeding under the Eminent Domain Law in order to enhance a golf course and for other recreational purposes was proper in the case Matter of Rocky Point Realty v Town of Brookhaven. The Court found that review of a condemnation proceeding is limited to four issues: “whether (1) the proceeding was in conformity with the federal and state constitutions, (2) the proposed acquisition was within the condemnor’s statutory jurisdiction or authority, (3) the condemnor’s determinations and findings were made in accordance with procedures set forth in EDPL article 2 and SEQRA, and (4) a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition…”.

The property owner’s contention that EDPL 202, which requires that the purpose of the hearing conducted by the Town be stated in the notice, also mandates a description of every aspect of the project and its implementation was rejected by the Court. It was held that the proposed condemnation would serve a legitimate public purpose by enhancing recreation in the Town and therefore met the test of being a “public use”.

Finally, the Court noted that the Town complied with SEQRA. It found that, as the EAF failed to identify any potential adverse impacts and the petitioner failed to identify any significant potential for environmental harm, the Town took the requisite hard look and properly issued a negative declaration.

A State Supreme Court Judge found that the Long Beach New York ordinance governing sales from food carts was unconstitutionally vague. In Party Magic Enterprises, Inc. v. City of New Rochelle, the plaintiff, who held a peddlers license from the city which permitted sale of food from a cart, challenged the local ordinance’s restriction on how long a peddler may keep his cart in the same location.

The challenged language required that the holder of a license may not “stand or permit the unmotorized vehicle used by him … to stand in a fixed location in any public place or street for more than five (5) minutes.”

The Court held that the ordinance was vague as the failure to define the distance a peddler must move every five minutes did not give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that contemplated conduct is forbidden and subjected the ordinance to arbitrary enforcement. It reasoned that one police officer might find that moving 100 feet was sufficient to comply with the law while another officer might conclude a greater distance was required. The court noted that several similar ordinances specify the distance that must be moved periodically and such a modification would cure the deficiency in this ordinance.

Finding that the Village violated equal protection rights of day laborers seeking employment on the streets of the Village of Mamaroneck, the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York directed the parties to submit briefs on the issue of appropriate remedies for the day laborers. The case arose out of activities undertaken by the Village to address what it viewed as “quality of life” issues arising out of the congregating of men seeking employment at various locations in the Village.

The findings of the Court (Doe v. Village of Mamaroneck) included a determination that the Village had undertaken a campaign of traffic enforcement to discourage contractors from picking up laborers in the Village. “The Village traffic enforcement policy was admittedly targeted at day laborers and contractors who wanted to hire them. In the mayor’s own words these groups were subjected to ‘aggressive ticketing’.”

The Court noted that the men impacted by the enforcement policies of the Village were almost exclusively Latino and concluded that the Village had acted differently in the past when those seeking work were mostly Caucasian. Finding that the accusations of anti-social behavior by the day laborers “have no support whatever in the record” and the “attitude of these Village officials differs radically from the historical attitude of Village officials toward transient laborers…” the Court concluded “the Village acted with malicious or bad faith intent” that was partially race based.

Finally, the Court concluded that the actions complained of were taken at the direction of municipal policy makers, the Chief of Police and Mayor, and therefore the municipality is liable for these actions.

Effective January 1, 2007 (Chapter 662 of the laws of 2006) the New York State Legislature has amended the General Municipal Law, Town Law, General City Law and Village Law to require four hours per year of training for each member of a local Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, including the county planning board. Time spent in training in excess of four hours per year may be carried over to subsequent years.

The training may be traditional classroom or other formats, including video. Reappointment to the local board is conditioned upon completion of the required training. The law also provides that each local legislature must approve the training provided to local board members but also permits the local legislative body to modify the training requirements in the “best interests” of the community.

Effective August 14, 2006 (Chapter 182 of the laws of 2006) the Public Officers Law, which governs FOIL requests, has been amended at section 89 (3) by adding (b) “All entities shall, provided such entity has reasonable means available, accept requests for records submitted in the form of electronic mail and shall respond to such requests by electronic mail, using forms, to the extent practicable, consistent with the form or forms developed by the committee on open government pursuant to subdivision one of this section and provided that the written requests do not seek a response in some other form.” Section 89(1) has also been amended to require development of forms for e-mail requests.

In a July 5, 2006 decision the New York Court of Appeals held that an Article 78 challenge to a rezoning was properly brought within four months of the rezoning, despite the fact that the challenge alleging SEQRA violations was brought more than four months after the SEQRA findings were adopted. In Eadie v. Town Board of the Town of North Greenbush, the Court of Appeals found that the challenge to rezoning was timely and that the Town Board complied with SEQRA requirements.

In holding that the Article 78 four-month statute of limitations began to run when the rezoning was enacted, the court noted that previous cases held the period begins when the petitioner has suffered injury not amenable to further review and corrective action. Since the Court found the petitioner in this case suffered no concrete injury until the Town Board approved the rezoning, petitioner had until four months from the date the new zoning was enacted to commence his action.

Despite language apparently indicating a bright-line rule as to the statute of limitations issue, the court then went on to note: “[T]his does not mean that, in every case where a SEQRA process precedes a rezoning, the statute of limitations runs from the latter event, for in some cases it may be the SEQRA process, not the rezoning, that inflicts the injury of which the petitioner complains.” The Court gave as an example the possibility that certain mitigation measures adopted in SEQRA findings might burden those challenging the rezoning. In such a case the Court noted the injury and therefore the time to bring a challenge would run from the adoption of the SEQRA findings, not the enactment of the legislation.

Thus the four month statute of limitations does not always begin to run at the enactment of the ordinance, but may begin to run at another point in time. This ruling should generate some interesting decisions in the future.

A petition to establish a water district may be approved even when it contains technical defects if the petition substantially complies with applicable requirements.

In Angelis v. Town of New Baltimore, the validity of a petition to establish a new water district was challenged. Opponents based the challenge on technical defects such as missing or incomplete information, failure to initial handwritten changes, and questionable handwriting/signature relationships. The Appellate Division Third Department held that none of the alleged defects were fatal to the petition, and that the petition could stand because requirements were substantially complied with.

The court reasoned that Town Law requirements were satisfied, and looked to the Election Law for authority stating that substantial compliance with requirements as to form is deemed acceptable.

An appellate court dismissed five consolidated actions challenging New York City’s and the MTA’s use of eminent domain to obtain land for a project on Manhattan’s West Side. In Matter of C/S 12th Ave. LLC v. City of New York, the Appellate Division First Department upheld the City’s approval of property acquisition and easements related to the project, as well as the Determination and Findings generated by the City and the MTA. The court also held that condemnation of an entire parcel is reasonable where the project for which the parcel is sought only requires a portion of the parcel, but partial demolition of the existing structure is not feasible.

Owners of property subject to condemnation for the project, which is known as the No. 7 Subway Extension Hudson Yards Rezoning and Redevelopment Program, challenged the City’s authority to acquire their land. Petitioners’ numerous claims include arguments that the City failed to comply with requirements of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, engaged in unconstitutional spot zoning, acted ultra vires, and failed to state an adequate public use to be served by the project.

The court held that Eminent Domain Procedure Law 204 does not require “extreme accuracy” in reference to the property to be acquired; rather the procedural requirement is satisfied when the acquiring agency sets forth the approximate location and the reasons for the location selection for the proposed project. In reaching its determination that specificity is not required, the court pointed out that the taking challenged in the EDPL claim is a temporary easement needed to construct and support portions of the project. In addition, the court reasoned, the easements were sought for structural stabilization of the subway tunnel during its construction, and precisely where the stabilization points would be required could not be determined in the planning stage of the project.

Petitioners claimed their property was singled out for a use classification that differs from that of the surrounding areas in violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. In examining this claim, the court found that there was a rational relationship between the disparate treatment of the parcel and the legitimate government purposes of well-considered development, generating jobs, and increasing the tax base. The court thus upheld disparate treatment of the property and discounted petitioners’ spot zoning claim.

In reviewing petitioners’ argument that the City’s actions were ultra vires, the court held that the actions were within the scope of its authority and further found that the Hudson Yards project constitutes a public use as required by the Constitution, since it serves a public purpose, citing the broad definition of public use upheld in Kelo v. City of New London.

The court also noted because the EDPL provided an adequate mechanism allowing the property owners to seek compensation, the challengers bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the challenged rezoning plan destroyed the economic value of the property. The court held that petitioners did not satisfy the burden and therefore allowed the regulations to stand.