PRESERVE HUDSON VALLEY Suit - KJ Annexation

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
PRESERVE HUDSON VALLEY, JOHN ALLEGRO
and LOUIS M. CERQUA
Index No.
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
- against TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MONROE, TOWN
OF MONROE SUPERVISOR HARLEY DOLES,
VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF KIRYAS
JOEL, ACTING COMMISSIONER MARC GERSTMAN
AS SUCCESSOR TO JOSEPH MARTENS OF THE NEW
YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, EMANUEL LEONOROVITZ,
BASYA SABOY, MENDE BREUER, ELLA BREUER,
CONG BETH ARYEH, ESTHER STESSEL, 257
MOUNTAINVIEW TRUST/ERWIN LANDAU, DAVID
GOLDBERGER, TZIPORA GOLDBERGER, 483 105
CORP., 481 COUN. CORP., PORT ORANGE
HOLDINGS, ISIDOR LANDAU, PROVIDERHAMASPIC OC, JOEL BRACH, HENRY WEINSTOCK,
BETH FREUND, JOSEPH STRULOVITCH 1, LLC,
LILLIAN STRULOVITCH, PINCUS J. STRULOVITCH,
HERBST FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC, HASHGUCHA
PRUTIUS LLC, BE & YO REALTY, INC., BENNY
WERCBERGER, RACHEL WERCBERGER, ISRAEL
WEBER, SIGMOND BRACH, FOREST EDGE
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, BRUCHA PROPERTIES LTD.,
FOREST ROAD, NAFTALI AUSCH, KENT
NEIGHBORHOOD, LLC, RAFOEL A. KRAUSZ,
ELIYAHU POLATESECK, ROSA POLATSECK,
MOISHE OPPENHEIM, WOLF WERCBERGER,
ZALMEN STERN, RIVKA OPPENHEIM, LIPA
OPPENHEIM, YEHUDA BERGER, SEVEN SPRINGS
CORP., MENDEL OPPENHEIM, RAIZEL EVA
FREUND, ISAAC GLANZER, JUDY GLANZER,
MOSES GOLDBERGER, SIMON GELB, SAMUEL
KAHAN, 7 SPRINGS VILLAS LLC, CHAIM LANDAU,
JOSEF FRIEDMAN, FRIDA FREIDMAN, SILAH
VERIFIED
ARTICLE 78 PETITION
AND COMPLAINT
ROSENBERG FAM, LLC, DEBORAH ROSENBERG,

ABRAHAM ROSENBERG, ISAAC ROSENBERG,
FOREST ROAD CAPITAL, LLC, COMMANDEER
REALTY ASSOC. INC., AMAZON/BURDOCK RLTY
ASSOC INC., ATKINS BROS INC., DER BLATT, INC.,
BAIS YISSROEL CONG, BERSH STERN, ALEX
NEUSTADT, CHAIM FRIEDMAN, GOLDY
FRIEDMAN, SEVEN SPRINGS RLTY INC., SARA
GELB, ERNO BODEK, RACHEL BODEK, ARTHUR
MEISELS, AM SEVEN SPRINGS LLC, JACOBS
HICKORY LLC, 282 MOUNTAINVIEW DRIVE, LLC,
JOEL REISMAN, PAULA RESIMAN, VISTA PEARL
LLC, KONITZ ESTATES, JACOB WIEDER, CHAYA
WEIDER, MARSHA WAGSCHAL, CONG LANZUT OF
O C, ELIAZER GLANZER, ESTHER GLANZER, 72
SEVEN SPRINGS RD LLC, 131 ACRES RD LLC,
BAKERTOWN ESTATES LLC, 12 BAKERTOWN
HOLDING, HARRY ARNSTEIN, ESTHER ARNSTEIN,
SHRAGA GREEBAUM, RELY GREEBAUM, JACOB
SCHWARTZ, RENEE SCHWARTZ, YEHOSUA
WEINER, DEVORAH WEINER, ALFRED
WEINGARTEN, SOLOMON ELLENBOGEN, HANA
PERLSTEIN, SIMON KATZ, RAIZY ELLENBOGEN,
BUILDING 54 LLC, MORDECHAI GOLDBERGER,
MOUNTAINVIEW NY ESTATES, INC., ISRAEL
WERZBERGER, YITTELE WERZBERGER, JOSSI
LEIG WERZBERGER, NDS PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT INC., BENJAMIN GREEN, CHAYA
GREEN, CHAIM PARNES, MIRIAN PARNES, TOBIAS
SCHREIBER, FEIGE SCHREIBER, MARTIN
TERKELTAUB, ZIGMUND KLEIN, ORANGE NY
HOMES, INC., VINTAGE APARTMENTS LLC,
UPSCALE 4 HOMES CORP., JOSEPH STRULOVITCH
1, LLC, AES 11-07 TRUST, BAKERSTOWN REALTY
EQUITIES, and JACOB BANDUA TRUST,
Respondents/Defendants.
---------------------------------------x
Petitioners/Plaintiffs
PRESERVE
HUDSON
VALLEY
(PHV),
JOHN
ALLEGRO (Allegro), EMILY CONVERS, (Convers), and Louis Cerqua (Cerqua,
together with PHV, Allegro, and Convers, Petitioners), by their attorneys, Zarin & Steinmetz,
as and for its Verified Petition and Complaint, respectfully allege, as follows:
SUMMARY OF ACTION
1.
Petitioners/Plaintiffs bring this proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the
New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) to challenge, annul, vacate and set aside:
(i)
the Town Board (Town Board) of the Town of Monroes (Town)
Involved Agency Findings Statement, adopted September 8, 2015, purportedly pursuant to the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (Town Boards SEQRA
Findings, copy annexed hereto as Exhibit A);
(ii)
the Town Boards Decision, Resolution, Order: 507.4 Acre and
163.8 Acre Annexation, adopted September 8, 2015 (Town Boards Annexation Resolution,
copy annexed hereto as Exhibit B);
(iii)
the Village of Kiryas Joel (Village) Board of Trustees (Village
Board) Resolution, Findings and Order Approving the Petition for Annexation of 164 +/Acres from the Town of Monroe to the Village of Kiryas Joel, adopted September 6, 2015
(Village Boards 164 Resolution, copy annexed hereto as Exhibit C);
(iv)
the Village Boards Resolution, Findings and Order Approving the
Petition for Annexation of 507 +/- Acres from the Town of Monroe to the Village of Kiryas
Joel, adopted September 6, 2015 (Village Boards 507 Resolution, copy annexed hereto as
Exhibit D);
(v)
the Village Boards SEQRA Statement of Findings, adopted
September 6, 2015 (Village Boards SEQRA Findings, copy annexed hereto as Exhibit E);
(vi)
the Village Boards Findings with Respect to Compliance of the 507-
Acre and 164-Acre Petitions for Annexation with the provisions of Article 17 of the General
Municipal Law and with Respect to the Effect of such Proposed Annexations on the Over-All
Public Interest, dated September 6, 2015 (Village Boards Annexation Findings, copy
annexed hereto as Exhibit F); and
(vii)
the Commissioner (the Commissioner) of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservations (DEC) determination to designate the Village

Board as Lead Agency for the subject SEQRA review, dated January 28, 2015. (Copy annexed
hereto as Exhibit G.)
2.
To the extent necessary, the claims set forth herein should be deemed to
be for declaratory relief.

3.
There are two petitions for the annexation of territory from the Town to
the Village that are at issue here:

(i)
a petition, submitted on or about December 27, 2013, to the Town Council
and the Village Board, which purports to seek the annexation to the Village of approximately
507 acres of territory in the Town (the 507 Petition), and;
(ii)
a petition, submitted on or about August 20, 2014, to the Town Council
and the Village Board, which purports to seek the annexation by the Village of approximately
164 acres of land in the Town (the 164 Petition, collectively with the 507 Petition, the
Annexation Petitions)
4.
The Town Boards and the Village Boards respective determinations on
the Annexation Petitions, were and remain unconstitutional, illegal, irrational, arbitrary and
capricious, and ultra vires for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to:

Violation of Establishment Clause: The Town Boards and the
Village Boards determinations on the Annexation Petitions would unconstitutionally cede
electoral territory and political power to a political subdivision whose franchise is, in effect,
determined by a religious test. See Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v.
Grument, et al. (Kiryas Joel), 512 U.S. 687, 114 S. Ct 2481 (1994) (holding that legislative
action that created a separate school district solely to serve the Villages distinctive population
impermissibly delegated political power to an electorate defined by common religious belief
and practice, in a manner that fails to foreclose religious favoritism). The unconstitutional result
posed by the Annexation Petitions, in and of itself, renders their form and content noncompliant
with Article 17 of the General Municipal Law (the Municipal Annexation Law);
Arbitrary Designation of Village Board As Lead Agency: In

settling the dispute between the Town Council and the Village Board as to which should serve as
Lead Agency for the subject SEQRA review, the DEC Commissioner was required to consider
criteria including which agency has the greatest capability for providing the most thorough
environmental assessment of the proposed action. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.6(b)(5)(v). The
Commissioner, however, ignored the Villages proven history of willful noncompliance with
environmental and land use requirements, including SEQRA. The resulting willfully defective
environmental review comes as no surprise;1
Arbitrary and Capricious SEQRA Determination By Town

Council: The Town Boards own SEQRA Findings state that a supplemental [generic
environmental impact statement] needs to be prepared to properly address the buildout potential
of the entire [Village with the Proposed Annexations] and provide the public with an opportunity
to comment on the anticipated impacts associated with the proposed annexation and
resulting/anticipated increase in density and population of the 507 acres of existing Town lands
as well as the 164 acre alternative annexation. The Town Council thus rejected the 507
Petition. The Town Council offered no explanation in its SEQRA Findings as to why it came to
a completely inconsistent determination in favor of the 164 Petition. As the Town Boardss own
consultant advised: the proposed annexations cannot be properly evaluated by the Monroe
Town Board and others because of the large gaps in the analysis. Furthermore, the Board of
Education for the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District (MWCSD) concluded that even
using the inaccurate premises in the environmental analysis, the impact on MWCSD cannot
be overcome. The Town Boardss issuance of SEQRA Findings in favor of the 164 Petition was
thus irrational;
Arbitrary and Capricious SEQRA Determination By Village

Board: Fortunately the law is clear, as stated in a decision vacating another flawed
environmental review by the Village, that [o]ne cannot presume that the requisite hard look
was taken based on the thickness of the DEIS or because the [agencys] consultants were highly
1
Petitioners/Plaintiffs already have a pending challenge to the DEC Commissioners designation

of the Village Board as Lead Agency, which the respondents in that proceeding have argued is premature.
See Preserve Hudson Valley, Inc., et al. v. N.Y.S. D.E.C., et al, Index No. 2015-001707 (Sup. Ct. Orange
Co.) (Connolly, J.). The same challenge is raised herein in an excess of caution.
regarded in their fields. See Cnty. of Orange v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 11 Misc. 3d 1056(A), 815
N.Y.S.2d 494 (Sup. Ct. Orange Cnty. 2005) affd as modified, 44 A.D.3d 765, 844 N.Y.S.2d 57
(2d Dept. 2007). The Villages SEQRA Findings are flawed in multiple respects, including their
arbitrary and irrational use of 2025 as the outside date for impacts analysis. As the Town Boards
consultant, the Orange County Planning Department, the MWCSD, and many others pointed out,
the subject SEQRA review was fundamentally flawed because it limited analysis to 10 years out
to end the impacts analysis at 2025. The Village itself, however, submitted projections to the
State Environmental Facilities Corporation for incredibly high density development through
2045, which, in the absence of rational mitigation measures, will cause unsustainable impacts on
water, sewer, and many other areas of environmental concern.
Improper Use of Annexation to Up-Zone: The Courts uniformly

hold that municipalities are not permitted to use annexation to evade existing zoning constraints.
The Village, however, has made it clear that if either Annexation were allowed, it would amend
the applicable zoning to allow for high-density development. For this reason alone, the form and
content of the Annexation Petitions fails to comply with the Municipal Annexation Law;.
Improper Creation of Baroque Boundaries: New York

Courts reject proposed annexations that would result in baroque or irregular and jagged
indentations of the boundaries between the municipalities. The form and content of the 507
Petition, in particular, fails to comply with the Municipal Annexation Law because it would
create baroque boundaries, and adversely affect the unity of community of the Town residents
left behind in an isolated island;
Violation of Town Ethics Code: The Town Council Members

who voted in favor of the 164 Petition violated the Town Codes Standard of Conduct, which
establishes that no Town Council Member can take any action that cause[s] voluntary
segregation, directly or indirectly, based upon creed. (Monroe Town Code 4-4(J)(1).) The
Municipal Annexation Law be construed to avoid objectionable results, such as violations of the
Towns Standard of Conduct. See, e.g., N.Y. Stat. 148;
Insufficient Signatures and Territorial Description: The form

and content of the Annexation Petitions otherwise violates the form and content of the Municipal
Annexation Law because the Petitions were ascribed by insufficient signatures and lack a clear
description of the territory proposed for Annexation, and;
Violation of Prior Jurisdiction Rule: The Prior Jurisdiction Rule

establishes that where there in a prior proceeding concerning certain territory pending,
jurisdiction to consider and determine other proceedings concerning the same territory is
excluded. Under this Rule, once the 507 Petition was initiated, no other Annexation Petition
concerning the same territory could be initiated until the 507 Petition process was concluded.
Consequently, the processing of the 164 Petition was ultra vires.
5.
Accordingly, the subject determinations should be reversed,
vacated and nullified.
THE PARTIES
6.
Petitioner/Plaintiff Preserve Hudson Valley, Inc. (Preserve Hudson
Valley) is a duly registered Not-for-Profit Corporation with offices located at 1150 East
Mombasha Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
7.
Preserve Hudson Valleys aims are: (i) to preserve and protect
Orange County, New York and surrounding areas from overdevelopment, including efforts to
promote the sustainability of all resources, and; (ii) to preserve and defend the constitutional and
historic separation of religion from government institutions in order to protect the public interest
of the citizens of Orange County.
8.
This proceeding is germane to Preserve Hudson Valleys purpose.
9.
Multiple members of Preserve Hudson Valley have individual
standing to challenge the subject actions, including Petitioner/Plaintiff John Allegro.

10.
The participation of none of Preserve Hudson Valleys members is
necessary to the relief requested herein.

11.
Petitioner/Plaintiff John Allegro (Allegro) resides at 288 Seven
Springs Mountain Road in the Town of Monroe, New York.

12.
Mr. Allegro resides within approximately 550 feet from the territory
that is the subject of the 507 Petition.

13.
Mr. Allegro would be directly and uniquely impacted by the
annexation of Town land to the Village under either the 164 or the 507 Petition.
14.
Mr. Allegro would, for example, be uniquely adversely impacted by
the adverse, unstudied impacts resulting from either the 164 or the 507 Petition on aesthetics,
visual concerns, and community character.
15.
Mr. Allegro has a daughter who attends the MWCSD public
schools, which would be adversely impacted by the unstudied significant adverse impacts of the
Proposed Annexation.
16.
Petitioner/Plaintiff Emily Convers (Convers) resides at 22 Sunset
Heights, in the Town of Monroe, New York.

17.
Ms. Convers is in Orange County Sewer District #1, which would
be adversely impacted by the unstudied significant adverse impacts of the Proposed Annexation.
18.
Ms. Convers has two sons who attend the MWCSD public schools,
which would be adversely impacted by the unstudied significant adverse impacts of the Proposed
Annexation.
19.
Petitioner/Plaintiff Louis M. Cerqua (Cerqua) resides at 300
Forest Road in the Town of Woodbury, New York.

20.
Mr. Cerqua resides adjacent to the territory that is the subject of
both the 164 and the 507 Petition.

21.
Mr. Cerqua would, for example, be uniquely adversely impacted by
the adverse, unstudied impacts of resulting from either the 164 or the 507 Petition on aesthetics,
visual concerns, and community character.
22.
Respondent/Defendant the Town Board of the Town of Monroe is
the elected body of the Town, with offices at 11 Stage Road in the Town of Monroe, New York.
23.
Respondent/Defendant Harley Doles is the Supervisor of the Town
of Monroe, with offices at 11 Stage Road in the Town of Monroe, New York.
24.
Supervisor Doles acts as a member of the Town Board, and voted
on the subject Town Board determinations.

25.
Respondent/Defendant the Village of Kiryas Joel (the Village)
Board of Trustees (the Village Board) is the elected body of the Village, with offices at 51
Forest Road in the Village of Kiryas Joel, New York.
26.
Respondent/Defendant Marc Gerstman, is the Acting Commissioner
(Commissioner Gerstman) of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

(DEC), with offices at 625 Broadway in the City of Albany, New York.
27.
Commissioner Gerstman is the successor to DEC Commissioner
Joseph J. Martens.
28.
Commissioner Martens rendered the determination designating the
Village Board as the Lead Agency for the subject SEQRA review.
29.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is
an agency of the State of New York, with offices at 625 Broadway in the City of Albany, New
York.
30.
Upon information and belief, Emanuel Leonorovitz and Basya
Saboy, are listed as signators of the 507 Petition and purport to be the owners of real property
located at 266 Mountainview Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
31.
Upon information and belief, Mende Breuer, is listed as a signator
of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 215 Mountainview
Drive, Monroe, New York 10950 and 221 Mountainview Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
32.
Upon information and belief, Ella Breuer, is listed as a signator of
the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 245 Mountainview
Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
33.
Upon information and belief, Cong Beth Aryeh, by Esther Tamb, is
listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owners of real property located at
230 Mountainview Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
34.
Upon information and belief, Esther Stessel, is listed as a signator of
the 507 Petition and purports to be the owners of real property located at 277 Mountainview
35.
Upon information and belief, 257 Mountainview Trust/Erwin
Landau Trust & Erwin Landau as Trustee are listed as signators of the 507 Petition and purport
to be the owners of real property located at 257 Mountainview Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
36.
Upon information and belief, David Goldberger and Tzipora
Goldberger, are listed as signators of the 507 Petition and purport to be the owners of real
property located at 269 Mountainview Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
37.
Upon information and belief, 483 105 Corp., by Martin Schlesinger,
is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at
483 County Route 105, Monroe, New York 10950.
38.
Upon information and belief, 481 Coun. Corp., by Martin
Schlesinger, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located 481 Co Rte 105, Monroe, New York 10950.
10
39.
Upon information and belief, Port Orange Holdings, by Isidor
Landau, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at Spring Rd., Monroe, New York 10950.
40.
Upon information and belief, Isidor Landau, is listed as a signator of
the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 21 Cliff Ct., Monroe,
New York 10950.
41.
Upon information and belief, Provider-Hamaspic OC, by Moses
Wertheimer, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at 121 Acres Rd., Monroe, New York 10950.
42.
Upon information and belief, Joel Brach, is listed as signator of the
507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 29 Chevron Rd., Monroe,
New York 10950.
43.
Upon information and belief, Henry Weinstock, is listed as a
signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 273
Mountainview Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
44.
Upon information and belief, Beth Freund, by Leopold Freund, is
listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at
236 Acres Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
45.
Upon information and belief, Joseph Strulovitch 1, LLC, by Joseph
Strulovitch, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at14 Israel Zupnic, Monroe, New York 10950.
11
46.
Upon information and belief, Lillian and Pincus J. Strulovitch, are
listed as signators of the 507 Petition and purport to be the owners of real property located at 180
Acres Road, Unit 201, Monroe, New York 10950.
47.
Upon information and belief, Herbst Family Holdings LLC, by
Henry Herbst, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located 210 Acres Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
48.
Upon information and belief, Hashgucha Prutius LLC, by Simon
Weiss, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located St. Rte. 17 M, Monroe, New York 10950.
49.
Upon information and belief, Be & Yo Realty, Inc., is listed as a
signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 37 Raywood
Dr., Monroe, New York 10950.
50.
Upon information and belief, Benny Wercberger and Rachel
Wercberger, are listed as signators of the 507 Petition and purport to be the owners of real
property located at 250 Mountainview Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
51.
Upon information and belief, Israel Weber, is listed as a signator of
the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 117 Bakertown Road,
Monroe, New York 10950.
52.
Upon information and belief, Sigmond Brach, is listed as a signator
of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 75 Seven Springs
Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
12
53.
Upon information and belief, Forest Edge Development, LLC, by
Sigmond Brach, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at 11 Mountain Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
54.
Upon information and belief, Brucha Properties Ltd., by Naftali E.
Ausch, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at Forest Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
55.
Upon information and belief, Naftali Ausch, is listed as a signator of
the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 165 Schunnemunk Road,
56.
Upon information and belief, Kent Neighborhood, LLC, by Mayer
H. Grunbaum, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at 73 Seven Springs Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
57.
Upon information and belief, Rafoel A. Krausz, is listed as a
signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 31 Seven
Springs Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
58.
Upon information and belief, Eliyahu Polateseck, is listed as a
59.
Upon information and belief, Rosa Polatseck, is listed as a signator
60.
Upon information and belief, Wolf Wercberger, is listed as a
13
Springs Mtn. Rd., Monroe, New York 10950 and 148 Seven Spring Mtn. Road, Monroe, New
York 10950.
61.
Upon information and belief, Moishe Oppenheim, is listed as a
signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at Co. Hwy 44,
62.
Upon information and belief, Zalmen Stern, is listed as a signator of
the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 124 Seven Springs Road,
63.
Upon information and belief, Rivka Oppenheim, is listed as a
64.
Upon information and belief, Lipa Oppenheim, is listed as a signator
65.
Upon information and belief, Yehuda Berger, is listed as a signator
66.
Upon information and belief, Seven Springs Corp., by Moses
Oppenheim, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at Seven Springs Rd., Monroe, New York 10950.
67.
Upon information and belief, Mendel Oppenheim, is listed as a
signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located Seven Springs
Rd., Monroe, New York 10950.
14
68.
Upon information and belief, Raizel Eva Freund, is listed as a
signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 22 Forest
69.
Upon information and belief, Isaac Glanzer and Judy Glanzer, are
Forest Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
70.
Upon information and belief, Moses Goldberger, is listed as a
Schunnemunk Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
71.
Upon information and belief, Simon Gelb, is listed as a signator of
the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 36 Forest Road, Unit
201, Monroe, New York 10950
72.
Upon information and belief, Samuel Kahan, is listed as a signator
of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 36 Forest Road, Unit
202, Monroe, New York 10950.
73.
Upon information and belief, 7 Springs Villas LLC, by Isaac
Rosenberg, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at Seven Springs Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
74.
Upon information and belief, Chaim Landau, is listed as a signator
of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at Seven Springs Road,
15
75.
Upon information and belief, Josef Friedman and Frida Freidman,
are listed as signators of the 507 Petition and purport to be the owners of real property located at
121 Schunnemunk Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
76.
Upon information and belief, Silah Rosenberg Fam, LLC, by Silah
Rosenberg, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at 137 Schunnemunk Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
77.
Upon information and belief, Deborah Rosenberg, is listed as a
78.
Upon information and belief, Abraham Rosenberg and Isaac
Rosenberg, are listed as signators of the 507 Petition and purport to be the owners of real
property located at Schunnemunk Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
79.
Upon information and belief, Forest Road Capital, LLC, by Isaac
Jacobowitz, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at 264 Forest Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
80.
Upon information and belief, Commandeer Realty Assoc. Inc., is
Co. Hwy 44, Monroe, New York 10950.
81.
Upon information and belief, Amazon/Burdock Rlty. Assoc. Inc., by
Elozer Gruber, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at 77 Acres Rd., Monroe, New York 10950; 67 Acres Rd., Monroe, New York
10950; Acres Rd., Monroe, New York 10950 and St. Rte. 208, Monroe, New York.
16
82.
Upon information and belief, Atkins Bros Inc., by Elozer Gruber, is
Raywood Dr., Monroe, New York 10950.
83.
Upon information and belief, Der Blatt, Inc., by Elimelech Deutsch,
220 Seven Springs Mountain Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
84.
Upon information and belief, Bais Yissroel Cong, by Chana
Werzberger, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at157 Schunnemnk Rd., Monroe, New York 10950.
85.
Upon information and belief, Bersh Stern, is listed as a signator of
the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 55 Seven Springs Road,
86.
Upon information and belief, Alex Neustadt, is listed as a signator
87.
Upon information and belief, Chaim Friedman and Goldy Friedman,
139 Seven Springs Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
88.
Upon information and belief, Seven Springs Rlty Inc., by Aaron H.
Weiss, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at 115 Seven Springs Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
17
89.
Upon information and belief, Sara Gelb, is listed as a signator of the
507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 85 Seven Springs Road,
90.
Upon information and belief, Erno Bodek and Rachel Bodek, are
91.
Upon information and belief, Arthur Meisels, is listed as a signator
92.
Upon information and belief, AM Seven Springs LLC, by Arthur
Meisels, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at Seven Springs Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
93.
Upon information and belief, Jacobs Hickory LLC, by Bernard
property located at State Route 17M, Monroe, New York 10950; Seven Springs Rd., Monroe,
New York 10950 and 52 Hickory Hollow Rd., Monroe, New York 10950
94.
Upon information and belief, 282 Mountainview Drive, LLC, by
Paula Reisman, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at 282 Mountainview Drive, Unit 1, Monroe, New York 10950.
95.
Upon information and belief, Joel Reisman, is listed as a signator of
Drive, Unit 2, Monroe, New York 10950.
18
96.
Upon information and belief, Paula Resiman and Joel Reisman, are
Mountainview Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
97.
Upon information and belief, Vista Pearl LLC, by Chaim H.
Oberlander, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located Chevron Rd., Monroe, New York 10950.
98.
Upon information and belief, Konitz Estates, LLC by Chaim Tager,
105 Schunnemunk Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
99.
Upon information and belief, Jacob Wieder and Chaya Weider, are
Lanzut Court, Monroe, New York 10950.
100.
Upon information and belief, Marsha Wagschal, is listed as a
signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 16 Lanzut
Court, Monroe, New York 10950.
101.
Upon information and belief, Cong Lanzut of O C by Jacob Wieder,
16 Lanzut Ct., Monroe, New York 10950.
102.
Upon information and belief, Eliazer Glanzer and Esther Glanzer,
40 Forest Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
19
103.
Upon information and belief, 72 Seven Springs Rd LLC by Lipa
Friedman, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at 72 Seven Springs Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
104.
Upon information and belief, 131 Acres Rd LLC by Lipa Friedman,
105.
Upon information and belief, Bakertown Estates LLC, by Moshe
Preizler, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at 105 Bakertown Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
106.
Upon information and belief, 12 Bakertown Holding, LLC by
Moses Mizrahi, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at 8 Israel Zupnik Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
107.
Upon information and belief, Harry Arnstein, Esther Arnstein,
Shraga Greebaum, Rely Greebaum, Jacob Schwartz, and Renee Schwartz, are listed as signators
of the 507 Petition and purport to be the owners of real property located at 24 Raywood Drive,
108.
Upon information and belief, Yehosua Weiner and Devorah Weiner,
109.
Upon information and belief, Alfred Weingarten, is listed as a
signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 42 Irene
20
110.
Upon information and belief, Solomon Ellenbogen, is listed as a
signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 154 Acres
Rd., Unit 201, Monroe, New York 10950.
111.
Upon information and belief, Hana Perlstein, is listed as a signator
of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 154 Acres Rd., Unit
202, Monroe, New York 10950.
112.
Upon information and belief, Simon Katz, is listed as a signator of
113.
Upon information and belief, Raizy Ellenbogen, is listed as a
Springs Rd., Monroe, New York 10950.
114.
Upon information and belief, Building 54 LLC by David Ausch, is
Rovna Way, Monroe, New York 10950; Chevron Rd., Monroe, New York 10950 and Chevron
115.
Upon information and belief, Mordichai Goldberger, is listed as a
signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at Chevron Rd.,
116.
Upon information and belief, Mountainview NY Estates, Inc. by
Joel Jacob, is listed as a signator of the 507 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at 290 Mountainview Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
21
117.
Upon
information
and
belief,
Israel
Werzberger,
Yittele
Werzberger, Jossi Leig Werzberger and NDS Property Management Inc., are listed as signators
of the 507 Petition and purport to be the owners of real property located at 38 Raywood Drive,
118.
Upon information and belief, Benjamin Green and Chaya Green, are
Irene Dr,, Monroe, New York 10950; 23 Irene Drive, Monroe, New York 10950; 24 Irene Drive,
Monroe, New York 10950 and Raywood Dr., Monroe, New York 10950
119.
Upon information and belief, Chaim Parnes and Mirian Parnes, are
Raywood Drive, Monroe, New York 10950.
120.
Upon information and belief, Tobias Schreiber and Feige Schreiber,
121.
Upon information and belief, Forest Edge Development, LLC, by
Shlomo Weiss, is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at 11 Mountain Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
122.
Upon information and belief, Israel Weber, is listed as a signator of
the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 117 Bakertown Road,
123.
Upon information and belief, Amazon/Burdock Rlty Assoc Inc., by
Elozer Gruber, is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
22
property located at 77 Acres Road, Monroe, New York 10950; 67 Acres Road, Monroe, New
York 10950; Acres Road, Monroe, New York 10950 and St Rte 208, Monroe, New York 10950.
124.
Upon information and belief, Mordechai Goldberger, is listed as a
signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at Chevron
125.
Upon information and belief, 12 Bakertown Holding, LLC, by
Moses Mizrahi, is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at 8 Israel Zupnik Dr., Monroe, New York 10950.
126.
Upon information and belief, 483 105 Corp., by Joel Englander is
483 Co. Rte. 105, Monroe, New York 10950.
127.
Upon information and belief, Martin Terkeltaub is listed as a
signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 421 Co. Rte.
105, Monroe, New York 10950 and 439 Co. Rte. 105, Monroe, New York 10950.
128.
Upon information and belief, Zigmund Klein is listed as a signator
of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 463 Co. Rte. 105,
129.
Upon information and belief, Orange NY Homes, Inc., by Samuel
Schwartz, is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at 465 Co. Rte. 105, Monroe, New York 10950.
130.
Upon information and belief, Vintage Apartments LLC, by Moshe
Friedman, is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at 2 Rovna Way, Monroe, New York 10950.
23
131.
Upon information and belief, Vista Pearl LLC, by Chaim
Oberlander, is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at Chevron Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
132.
Upon information and belief, Upscale 4 Homes Corp., by Yoel
Grunhut, is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at 107 Seven Springs Mountain Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
133.
Upon information and belief, Forest Road Capital, LLC, by Isaac
property located at 264 Forest Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
134.
Upon information and belief, Beth Freund., by Leopold Freund, is
135.
Upon information and belief, Herbst Faily Holdings, LLC, by Henry
Herbst, is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at 210 Acres Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
136.
Upon information and belief, Pincus J. and Lillian Strulovitch, are
Acres Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
137.
Upon information and belief, Joseph Strulovitch 1, LLC, by Pincus
J. Strulovitch, is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at 14 Israel Zupnik Dr., Monroe, New York 10950.
24
138.
Upon information and belief, Solomon Ellenbogen is listed as a
signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property located at 154 Acres
Road, Unit 201, Monroe, New York 10950.
139.
Upon information and belief, AES 11-07 Trust, by Elimelech
Schwartz, Trustee, is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at Acres Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
140.
Upon information and belief, Bakerstown Realty Equities, by
Mendel Wieder is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real
property located at Acres Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
141.
Upon information and belief, Jacob Bandua Trust, by Moshe
Bandau, is listed as a signator of the 164 Petition and purports to be the owner of real property
located at Acres Road, Monroe, New York 10950.
JURISDICTION
142.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and may exercise personal
jurisdiction over the Respondents/Defendants in this matter and/or may exercise personal and in
rem jurisdiction.
143.
Pursuant to CPLR Section 506(b), venue is proper in this Court. The
determinations complained of were made, the proceedings sought to be restrained originated, and
the material events otherwise took place, in the County of Orange, which is situated within the
Ninth Judicial District.
144.
No prior application for this or any similar relief has been made to
this or any other Court.
25
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Villages Historic And Consistent Failure To Abide By Zoning,
Land Use, And Environmental Laws Is Not In The Public Interest
Kiryas Joel Was Created 40 Years Ago
Specifically To Avoid The Towns Zoning Laws
145.
As former Town Supervisor William C. Rogers ruling in 1976 on
the original petition to incorporate the Village of Kiryas Joel makes clear, the Village was
created with the express purpose of avoiding the Town of Monroes zoning laws. (See Decision
on Sufficiency of Petition in the Matter of the Formation of a New Village To be Known as
Kiryas Joel, Dec. 10, 1976.)
146.
In response to the illegal conversion and illegal construction of
housing in the subdivision known as Monwood, the Town commenced legal proceedings to
compel conformance with its zoning laws. (See id. at 3-4.)
147.
Arduous opposition [was] thrown up to the Towns enforcement
efforts by Monwood business leaders, who were concerned that the Towns zoning laws would
interfere with their development strategy. (Id. at 4.)
148.
Former Supervisor Rogers indicated that the residents of the illegal
dwellings were unwitting victims of the business leaders evasion of the law. (Id.)
149.
Rather than comply with the Towns zoning laws, the leaders of the
Satmar community in Monwood sought to slip away from the Towns enforcement program
through the village incorporation procedure under State law. (Id. at 7.)
150.
Former Supervisor Rogers deemed this action to be almost sinister
and surely an abuse of the right of self incorporation. (Id.)
26
151.
Supervisor Rogers rued the fact that, unlike Respondents the current
Town Board and Village Board, he could not comment on how the public interest would be
affected by the 1976 village incorporation petition. (Id. at 8 (As much as I would like to deal
with the public interest question of this proposal and how I feel that it will endanger an otherwise
rural residential neighborhood of Monroe, by law, I cannot.).)
152.
He felt constrained to only pass on the sufficiency of the
incorporation petition. (Id. at 8-9.)

153.
Presciently,
former
Supervisor
Rogers
predicted
more
confrontations as bitter as th[is] one if the Kiryas Joel community continued to avoid the Town
of Monroes laws:
For the Satmars to believe that they are above or separate
from the rules and regulations that Monroe has chosen to
live by or try to impose their mores upon the community of
Monroe, or to hide behind the self-imposed shade of
secrecy or cry out religious persecution when there is none,
will only lead to more confrontations as bitter as the one
this decision purports to resolve.
(Id. at 9.)
154.
History has, unfortunately, validated his concerns.
40 Years Later, The Village Does Not Comply With

Applicable State And Federal Environmental And Land Use Laws
155.
Throughout the Annexation process, it has become clear that the
Village still systematically disregards environmental regulations and other laws affecting the
public interest, which allows unregulated development and accompanying adverse impacts,
including:
Routine failure to implement required environmental review under
SEQRA;
27

Serial violation of basic municipal planning and zoning requirements,
including that the Villages Planning and Zoning Board members do not satisfy the Staterequired training programs;
Regular failure to refer land use matters to the Orange County Planning
Department, as required by Section 239-m of the New York State General Municipal Law; and
Repeated violations issued by DEC and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) of applicable environmental protection requirements.
156.
In a written request under the New York State Freedom of
Information Law (FOIL), dated August 18, 2014, submitted by a citizens group, United
Monroe, for example, requested that the Village provide basic information relating to its
planning processes, including copies of all determinations made by any Village agencies under
SEQRA, such as positive declarations, negative declarations, conditional negative declarations
and/or findings statements. (See FOIL Request to the Village, dated Aug. 18, 2014 (the August
18th FOIL) .)
157.
In response, the Village did not produce any determinations made
under SEQRA. (See Letter from Javid Afzali, Esq., to Daniel Richmond, Esq., dated Sept. 29,
2014; Letter from Javid Afzali, Esq., to Daniel Richmond, Esq., dated Nov. 10, 2014; E-mail
from Javid Afzali, Esq., to Krista Yacovone, Esq., dated Nov. 19, 2014.)
158.
Indeed, the Villages poor track record in implementing SEQRA is
well-documented. See County of Orange v. Village of Kiryas Joel, 11 Misc. 3d 1056(A), 815
N.Y.S.2d 494 (Sup. Ct. Orange Cnty. 2005) (One cannot presume that the requisite hard look
was taken based on the thickness of the DEIS or because the [agencys] consultants were highly
regarded in their fields.), affd as modified, 44 A.D.3d 765, 844 N.Y.S.2d 57 (2d Dept. 2007).
159.
The Villages history of SEQRA noncompliance is a legitimate line
of inquiry where the subject action (i.e., the Annexations) would make the Village responsible
28
for additional SEQRA review in the future. (Cf. N.Y.S. D.E.C. Commissioners Policy, Record
of Compliance Enforcement Policy, at 3 (establishing that the environmental compliance
history of a permit applicant is a relevant consideration regarding qualification for permitting).)2
160.
United Monroe also confirmed that the Village does not fully adhere
to other critical land use requirements.

161.
In its August 18th FOIL request, United Monroe also asked the
Village to provide basic information relating to its planning processes, including (i) the identities
of the members of the Village Planning Board and Zoning Board; (ii) documents relating to
Village Planning Board and Zoning Board Members satisfaction of applicable training
requirements since January 2012; (iii) all Planning Board and Zoning Board agendas, minutes,
and resolutions since January 2012; and (iv) copies of all referrals made to the Orange County
Planning Department pursuant to Section 239-m of the New York State General Municipal Law
since January 2012.3
162.
The Villages response demonstrated that it routinely violates
municipal planning and zoning requirements, including that its Planning and Zoning Board
Courts will consider an agencys history of noncompliance with environmental regulations when
reviewing the adequacy of any environmental review conducted by that agency. See, e.g., Citizens
Advisory Comm. on Private Prisons, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 197 F. Supp. 2d 226, 251 (W.D. Pa.
2001), affd, 33 F. Appx 36 (3d Cir. 2002) ([I]n cases where the agency has already violated [the
National Environmental Policy Act], its vow of good faith and objectivity is often viewed with
suspicion.); Natl Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs, 457 F. Supp. 2d 198, 222 n.178
(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citing Citizens Advisory Comm. on Private Prisons when discussing federal regulations
prohibiting agencies from preparing an EIS simply to justify decisions already made, and requiring
agencies to show a good faith and objective review of potential environmental impacts of the proposed
action). Assessment of the Villages history of poor environmental stewardship is therefore critical to an
analysis of the proposed Annexations.
3
The Village initially did not even acknowledge the request, which was deemed by operation of
law to be a constructive denial of the request, and United Monroe was compelled to commence an
administrative appeal by letter dated September 15, 2014.
29
members do not satisfy the State-required training programs, and that it never refers land use
applications to the Orange County Planning Department, as is required by law.
163.
Furthermore, both DEC and the EPA have found repeated violations
in the Village of applicable environmental protection requirements. (See Letter from United
Monroe to DEC, dated Apr. 4, 2014.)
164.
These include violations of the Clean Water Act and failure to
comply with State permitting requirements during construction activities and operations of its
wastewater treatment plant. (See Letter from Daniel Richmond, Esq., to the Honorable Vincent
L. Briccetti, dated Nov. 24, 2014; Letter from Krista Yacovone, Esq., to Robert L. Ewing, dated
Dec. 3, 2014; Letter from Krista Yacovone, Esq., to Patrick Ferracane and Jennifer ZuninoSmith, dated Dec. 16, 2014.)
165.
The Villages consistent failure to comply with these basic
requirements, which provide municipalities with mechanisms to protect the environment and the
community when making land use decisions, will allow for unregulated, high density
development that will cause significant harm to the environment and to citizens of Orange
County.
166.
Absent a functioning planning process, future development could
proceed without limitation or concern for the surrounding community.

167.
Such development would certainly not be in the public interest.
Facially Insufficient Petition Submitted For

Annexation By Village of 507 Acres of Town Territory
168.
On or about December 27, 2013, a petition was submitted to the
Town Board and the Village Board, which purported to seek the annexation by the Village of
approximately 507 acres of land in the Town (i.e., the 507 Petition).
30
169.
The 507 Petition fails to substantially comply in form and/or content
with multiple provisions of Article 17 of the General Municipal Law. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law
705(1)(d).
170.
Interested parties who timely objected to the form and content of the
507 Petition include the Board of Education of the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District
(MWCSD). (See Letter to Tim Miller Assocs. from Judith Crelin Mayle, dated June 22, 2015
(June 22nd MWCD Letter).)
Unqualified Signatures On 507 Petition
171.
The 507 Petition is invalid in the first instance because it contains
multiple unqualified, invalid signatures. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 705(1)(a).
172.
First, as the MWCDC pointed out, it is improbable that all listed
petitioners signed the 507 Petition on December 23, 2013, as the Petition asserts.
173.
Moreover, as the MWCSD pointed out, the purported signatures
were not authenticated until four days later.

174.
The MWCSD also pointed out numerous substantial unauthorized
alterations on the 507 Petition.

175.
In addition, there are various corporate signatories, which, upon
information and belief, are not valid corporations under the New York State Business
Corporation Law, Not-for-Profit Corporation Law or Religious Corporations Law.
176.
Konitz Estates, LLC, which is the alleged owner of record of
S/B/L 1-2-30.7, is not an active (or inactive) Corporation or Business Entity in New York State.
Congregation Lanzut of Orange County, the alleged owner of record of S/B/L 1-1-47.232, also
31
is not an active (or inactive) Corporation or Business Entity in New York State, and does not
appear to be validly formed under the Religious Corporations Law.
177.
Similarly, Bias Yisroel Congregation, the alleged owner of record
of S/B/L 1-2-32.12, is not an active (or inactive) Corporation or Business Entity in New York
State, and does not appear to be validly formed under the Religious Corporations Law.
178.
Finally, Atkins Brothers, Inc., the alleged owner of record of
S/B/L 43-1-12, is not an active (or inactive) Corporation or Business Entity in New York State.
179.
The signatures of these entities should be stricken and the total
assessed valuation of the Territory proposed to be annexed to the Village should be reduced by
the assessed value of these parcels, i.e., $209,400.00.
180.
Moreover, there are three (3) parcels listed in the 507 Petition that
are jointly owned by two (2) entities but for which only one signature was obtained: S/B/L 1-314.21; 1-3-15; and 1-3-40.
181.
These properties are purportedly owned by both Amazon Realty
Associates, Inc., and Burdock Realty Associates, Inc.

182.
There is only one signatory, however, signing for each of these three
183.
It is unclear whether the signatory, Elozer Gruber, is signing on
(3) parcels.
behalf of Amazon Realty Associates, signing on behalf of Burdock Realty Associates, or

purporting to sign on behalf of both entities.
184.
Without a valid signature on behalf of both property owners, these
parcels cannot be included in the total assessed valuation of the Territory proposed to be
annexed to the Village.
32
185.
The total valuation should be reduced by the assessed value of these
parcels, i.e., $145,300.00.

186.
The 507 Petition should have been rejected by the Town Board and
the Village Board for failing to obtain valid qualified signatures.

507 Petition Does Not Describe The Territory To Be Annexed
187.
The 507 Petition is also invalid because it does not sufficiently
describe the territory to be annexed. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 703(1); Bd. of Trustees of
Irvington, Westchester Cnty. v. Town Bd. of Greenburgh, Westchester Cnty., 42 A.D.2d 731,
345 N.Y.S.2d 667, 668 (2d Dept. 1973) (upholding dismissal of annexation petition as defective
where it did not contain an accurate description of the area sought to be annexed).
188.
First, Exhibit A to the 507 Petition, which purports to contain the
legal description of the territory to be annexed from the Town to the Village, contains the legal
description for 164 parcels.
189.
Exhibit C to the 507 Petition, hich purports to contain a certificate
signed by the Town Assessor responsible for preparing the 2013 Final Town Assessment Roll
and certifying that the lots that Petitioners affirm they own within the Territory proposed to be
annexed have a total assessed valuation that is a majority of the total assessed valuation of all the
real property in the Territory proposed to be annexed, according to the 2013 Final Assessment
Roll of the Town, in contrast contains 177 parcels.
190.
It is wholly unclear which parcels comprise the Territory that
Petitioners seek to annex.

191.
For this reason alone, the 507 Petition should have been rejected.
33
192.
Second, the legal metes and bounds and accompanying parcel list
included in Exhibit A does not match the parcel list certified by the Assessor in Exhibit C.
193.
The following parcels (by S/B/L number) were included in Exhibit
C as part of the Territory proposed to be annexed to the Village as described in Exhibit A of the
Petition and as shown on the assessment roll of the Town for the year 2013, but were not
included in Exhibit A:
-
1-1-4.2
1-1-4.32
1-1-11.21
1-1-11.22
43-1-1
43-1-13
43-1-14
43-1-15
43-3-6
43-4-1
43-4-3
43-4-4
43-5-10
43-5-11
194.
For this reason alone, the 507 Petition should be rejected.
195.
Moreover, there are multiple parcels identified in both Exhibit A
and Exhibit C which, based on the legal metes and bounds description in Exhibit A, appear to be
incorrectly identified.
196.
The following parcels were improperly identified in both Exhibit A
and Exhibit C:
-
1-2-1
1-2-3.3
59-2-1.1
56-1-1.1
56-1-1.2
61-1-1.1
61-1-1.2
34
62-1-1.1
62-1-1.2
63-1-1.1
63-1-1.2
65-1-27
65-1-5
65-1-6
66-1-1.1
66-1-1.2
197.
Finally, S/B/L 43-1-11 was included in Exhibit A but not included
198.
The aforementioned inconsistencies render it entirely impossible to
in Exhibit C.
discern the limits of the territory proposed for annexation.

199.
The 507 Petition must be dismissed for failing to comply with so
much of Article 17 of the General Municipal Law as requires a complete and accurate
description of the property at issue. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 703(1) & 705(1)(d).
Facially Insufficient Petition Submitted For
Annexation By Village of 164 Acres of Town Territory
200.
Both the Town Board and the Village Board asserted their intent to
serve as Lead Agency for the review of the 507 Petition under SEQRA.
201.
As a result, the DEC Commissioner was compelled to designate
which agency should serve as the Lead Agency for the 507 Petition.
202.
Rather than await the DECs determination with respect to which
Board should serve as Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of the 507 Petition, another
annexation petition, for approximately 164 acres of land is the Town, was submitted (i.e., the
164 Petition).
35
203.
The submission of the 164 Petition appeared to represent an effort to
usurp DECs lawful duty to determine the Lead Agency for the Annexation. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R.
617.6(b)(5).
204.
The interjection of the 164 Petition also appears to violate the so-
called prior jurisdiction rule, which holds that where a municipal annexation proceeding has
been commenced by the filing of a petition for annexation, jurisdiction to consider and determine
other annexation proceedings concerning the same territory is excluded.
205.
As such, the Town Board and the Village Board lacked jurisdiction
to consider the 164 Petition until proceedings relating to the 507 Petition have been completed.
206.
In any event, the 164 Petition fails to substantially comply in form
or content with multiple provisions of Article 17 of the General Municipal Law. See N.Y. Gen.
Mun. Law 705(1)(d).
207.
Again, various interested Parties, including the MWCSD, pointed
out problems with the form and content of the 164 Petition. (See June 22nd MWCSD Letter.)
Unqualified Signatures On 164 Petition
208.
As with the 507 Petition, the 164 Petition is invalid because it
contains multiple unqualified, invalid signatures. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 705(1)(a).
209.
As the MWCSD pointed out, like the 507 Petition, it is improbable
that all purported petitioners signed the Petition on the same date.
210.
As the MWCSD also pointed out, in any event, the signatures were
not purportedly authenticated until four days later.
36
211.
Moreover, there are corporate signatories which are not valid
corporations under the New York State Business Corporation Law, Not-for-Profit Corporation
Law or Religious Corporations Law.
212.
Upon information and belief, Upscale 4 Homes Corp., which is the
alleged owner of record of S/B/L 65-1-32, is not an active (or inactive) Corporation or
Business Entity in New York State.
213.
The signature of this entity should be stricken and the total assessed
valuation of the Territory proposed to be annexed to the Village should be reduced by the
assessed value of this parcel, i.e., $20,000.00.
214.
It is also unclear what the corporate status of Bakertown Realty
Equities is, and whether it owns S/B/L 1-3-1.3.

215.
According to the 2014 Final Town Assessment Roll, this parcel is
wholly owned by AES 11-07 Trust, Elimelech Schwartz, Trustee.

216.
In the 164 Petition, however, there are two (2) entities listed below
AES 11-07 Trust Bakertown Realty Equities and Jacob Bandua Trust.
217.
Neither Bakertown Reality Equities, nor the Jacob Bandua Trust,
appears to own S/B/L 1-3-1.3. Their names and signatures should be stricken from the Petition.
218.
Second, again, there are three (3) parcels that are jointly owned by
two (2) entities but for which only one signature was obtained: S/B/L 1-3-14.21; 1-3-15; and 1-340.
219.
These properties are owned by both Amazon Realty Associates,
Inc., and Burdock Realty Associates, Inc. There is only one signatory, however, signing for each
of these three (3) parcels.
37
220.
It is unclear whether the signatory, Elozer Gruber, is signing on
behalf of Amazon Realty Associates, signing on behalf of Burdock Realty Associates, or

purporting to sign on behalf of both entities.
221.
Without a valid signature on behalf of both property owners, these
properties cannot be included in the total assessed valuation of the Territory proposed to be
annexed to the Village.
222.
The total valuation should be reduced by the assessed value of these
parcels, i.e., $145,300.00.

223.
The 164 Petition must be dismissed for failing to obtain valid
qualified signatures.
164 Petition Does Not Describe The Territory To Be Annexed
224.
The 164 Petition is invalid because it does not sufficiently describe
the territory to be annexed. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 703(1) & 705(1)(d).
225.
First, Exhibit A to the 164 Petition, which purports to contain the
legal description of the territory to be annexed from the Town to the Village, contains the legal
description for 72 parcels.
226.
Exhibit C to the 164 Petition, which purports to contain a certificate
signed by the Town Assessor responsible for preparing the 2014 Final Town Assessment Roll
and certifying that the tax lots that petitioners affirm in the Petition that they own within the
Territory proposed to be annexed to the Village has [sic] a total assessed valuation that is a
majority of the total assessed valuation of all of the Territory described in the Petition which is
now situated in the Town and which is sought to be annexed to the Village, as shown on the
assessment roll of the Town for the year 2014, contains 71 parcels.
38
227.
Second, the legal metes and bounds description and accompanying
parcel list included in Exhibit A does not match the parcel list certified by the Assessor in
Exhibit C. S/B/L 1-2-1 is included in Exhibit A (Area III) but is not included in Exhibit C.
228.
Moreover, Exhibit A lists S/B/L 61-1-1.-1 and 61-1-1.-2 (Area
VIII), while Exhibit C lists S/B/L 61-1-1.1 and 61-1-1.2.

229.
The aforementioned inconsistencies render it entirely impossible to
discern the limits of the territory proposed for annexation.

230.
As such, the 164 Petition, too, must be dismissed for failing to
comply with this requirement under the General Municipal Law.

The Form and Content of Both Petitions
Are Flawed In Multiple Respects
231.
Both Petitions must be also dismissed because they both fail to
comply with other provisions of Article 17 of the General Municipal Law. See N.Y. Gen. Mun.
Law 705(1)(d).
232.
Neither the Annexation of 164 nor 507 acres from the Town to the
Village would be in the overall public interest.

233.
Either Annexation would bring high density housing, unregulated
development and legal noncompliance to the Annexation Area and will cause adverse impacts on
both the public and the environment.
The Town Board Is Advised That Annexation
Would Violate Establishment Clause
234.
Early in the process, by letter dated May 15, 2014, a citizens group,
United Monroe, advised the Town Board that the proposed annexation would violate the
Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.
39
235.
As United Monroe wrote, the United States Supreme Court made
clear in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grument, et al. (Kiryas
Joel), 512 U.S. 687, 114 S. Ct 2481 (1994), the government cannot draw political boundaries
based on religious criteria.
236.
Stated differently, the government cannot delegate important,
discretionary governmental powers to a political subdivision whose franchise is, in effect,

determined by a religious test.
237.
In Kiryas Joel, the Supreme Court held that a New York State
legislative Act, which created a separate school district solely to serve the Village of Kiryas
Joels distinctive population (the School Act), violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
238.
The Supreme Court held that such action was tantamount to an
allocation of political power on a religious criterion and neither presupposes nor requires
governmental impartiality toward religion. 114 S. Ct. at 2485.
239.
By way of background, the Establishment Clause compels the
State to pursue a course of neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over others
nor religious adherents collectively over nonadherents. Id. at 2487 (citations omitted).
240.
A governmental entity violates the wholesome neutrality
guaranteed by the Establishment Clause when its actions cause a fusion of governmental and
religious functions by delegating important, discretionary governmental powers to religious
bodies, thus impermissibly entangling government and religion. Id. at 2487-88.
241.
Based on this premise, the Supreme Court held that the School Act
violated the Establishment Clause, because it was substantially equivalent to defining a political
40
subdivision and hence the qualification for its franchise by a religious test, resulting in a
purposeful and forbidden fusion of governmental and religious functions. Id. at 2490 (citation
omitted).
242.
The Supreme Court noted that it was irrelevant that the School Act
generically delegated power to residents of the territory of the Village of Kiryas Joel, rather
than containing an express reference to the religious belief of the Satmar community. Id. at
2489.
243.
[T]he context here persuade[d the Court] that [the Act] effectively
identifies these recipients of governmental authority by reference to doctrinal adherence, even

though it does not do so expressly. Id.
244.
Here, the Town Boards and the Village Boards respective
determinations on both the 507 and the 164 Annexation Petitions unconstitutionally purported to
cede electoral territory to Kiryas Joel, which would result in a constitutionally improper
delegation of political power to the Village.
Wholly Deficient SEQRA Review
245.
The DEC Commissioner arbitrarily and capriciously determined that
the Village Board should serve as the Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of the 507 Petition.
246.
The Village Boards review under SEQRA is illegitimate because
the DEC Commissioner erred in selecting the Village as Lead Agency for the review.
247.
PHV has filed a pending litigation challenging DECs determination
248.
It is clear that the Village has little regard for land use laws and
in this regard.
environmental regulations, let alone any respect for its obligations under SEQRA.
41
249.
This poor track record showed that the subject SEQRA review, with
the Village Board at the helm as Lead Agency, could not be trusted to adequately study the
potential significant adverse impacts of the Proposed Annexation on the environment and
community.
250.
Moreover, the Villages track record showed that the Village Board
would not give due consideration to public input in the environmental review, as SEQRA
requires.
251.
Indeed, even before DEC Commissioners determination, the
Villages disregard for public input in the SEQRA process was already demonstrated by its
insistence on holding its Scoping Session on the night of a major snow storm.
252.
Despite numerous pleas for the Village to adjourn the Scoping
Session (such as requests from public officials including the Orange County Executive), if only
for public safetys sake, the Village cynically proceeded with the Scoping Session.
253.
The last speaker at the Scoping Session was the Highway
Superintendent for the Town of Monroe, who had to advise the public to drive with extreme
caution in light of the weather conditions, warning that you could skid off the road in a minute.
254.
Conditions were so bad that [i]f you ha[d] a survival kit in your car
and you [couldnt] get out of your car, the Highway Superintendent advised that you please
use it.
255.
Respectfully, the SEQRA review led by the Village Board
unfortunately confirmed the Villages intent to misuse the SEQRA process to rationalize a preordained result.
42
256.
There can be no better evidence of the deficient SEQRA review on
the proposed Annexation Petitions than the fact the Towns own consultant, JMC, found both the
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) and the Final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (FGEIS, collectively with the DGEIS, the GEIS) lacking in critical
respects and said that a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) was
required.
(See Memorandum from JMC to Town Board, dated June 18, 2015, entitled
Comments on Kiryas Joel Annexation Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (JMC
DGEIS Memo.) & Memorandum from JMC to Town Board, dated Aug. 31, 2015, entitled
Comments on Kiryas Joel Annexation Final Environmental Impact Statement (JMC FGEIS
Memo.).
Flawed DGEIS
257.
JMC, the Town Boards consultant for review of the proposed
Annexations, found the DGEIS so flawed that it stated that an SGEIS was required.
258.
JMC, for example, determined that the DGEIS was fundamentally
flawed because it limited analysis to 10 years out and that a SGEIS was required to correct this:
The Kiryas Joel Annexation DGEIS is based entirely on a 10 year
projection of population growth of residents within existing
Village of Kiryas Joel, which is comprised of approximately 700
acres per the DGEIS. The 10 year analysis included in the DGEIS
considers only a portion of the potential future impacts.
Accordingly, a supplemental DGEIS needs to be prepared to
properly address the buildout potential of the entire 1,207 acres
and provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the
anticipated impacts associated with the proposed annexation and
resulting/anticipated increase in density and population of the 507
acres of existing Town lands as well as the 164 acre alternative
annexation. In order to properly evaluate the full environmental
impacts associated with the proposed annexation. A timeframe for
when such buildouts would occur beyond 2025 should be included.
(JMC DGEIS Memo. at 1-2.)
43
259.
JMC further advised that [t]he buildout analyses need to be
conducted in order to evaluate longer-term (greater than 10 year) impacts from the associated
population growth to critical infrastructure, including but not limited to water and sanitary sewer
demands and evaluating capacities to accommodate such demands. (Id. at 2.)
260.
As described below in greater detail in the Third Cause of Action,
the DGEIS contained multiple other deficiencies, which were never cured.
Flaws In FGEIS So Serious That Town Boards Own Consultant
States That The Proposed Annexations Cannot Be Properly Evaluated
261.
Not only did the Village Board fail to require an SGEIS, but, in fact,
it rushed out an FGEIS that simply perpetuated and sought to rationalize the flaws in the DGEIS.
262.
Again, the Town Boards own consultant, JMC, found the FGEIS
seriously deficient.
263.
Indeed, JMC advised the Town Board that the proposed
annexations cannot be properly evaluated by the Monroe Town Board and others because of
the large gaps in its analysis, including with respect to such basic issues as buildout analysis:
The FGEIS responses do not provide the requested buildout
analysis of the population increase that could be reasonably
expected with the full development of the 164 and 343 acre
annexation areas. We continue to believe that the proposed
annexations cannot be properly evaluated by the Monroe Town
Board and others without a buildout analysis reflecting the use of
the entire acreages of the annexation territories and the potential
populations living within the annexed properties as a result of the
increased development densities anticipated. The requested
buildout analysis of the future population resulting from the
annexation(s) relate to the fundamental impact issues of water
supply and sewage treatment capacities, schools, traffic, etc.
(JMC FGEIS Memo. at 5 (emphasis added).)
44
264.
JMC noted that the improperly circumscribed analysis impeded
analysis of critical issues, such as water supply:

For example, in FGEIS Response 3.5.7-3, the Applicant notes that
the NYCDEP requires that all water taken from the aqueduct has
back-up capacity from the groundwater sources, and the Village
has secured the rights to approximately 2,419,200 gpd of
additional potential water supply capacity to bring these new water
sources on-line as the Village demand increases. A longer
timeframe buildout analysis is necessary to assess the long-term
ability of the village to obtain additional backup water sources to
the aqueduct, up to a full-buildout scenario.
(Id. at 14 (emphasis added).)
265.
As JMC stated, [t]he FGEIS response does not address the
additional water supply and sanitary sewer treatment demands and capacities associated with
the buildout of the annexed territories. (Id.)
266.
JMC also called out the patent deficiency that [t]he FGEIS
response does not recognize that existing Town land would be developed at higher densities that
currently permitted. (Id. at 5.)
267.
JMC pointed out multiple other areas of environmental concern
where the FGEIS failed to provide the necessary empirical analysis.

268.
JMC also expressed deep skepticism with respect to the FGEISs
claim that impacts resulting from Annexation would be addressed in subsequent environmental
reviews.
269.
It noted, for example, that [a]s far as we are aware, the Village has
never required the preparation of a traffic study at the time of site specific development
applications. (Id. at 10.)
45
270.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to be skeptical of whether site
specific analyses will be conducted in the future. In our opinion, the comment is not sufficiently
addressed. (Id.)
271.
Moreover, as JMC wrote, We find that there are gross deficiencies
in the FGEIS concerning environmental, fiscal, and social impact analyses of each annexation
alternative.
Orange County and Others Point Out That the SEQRA Analysis
Failed to Substantively Identify and Document, Quantitatively With
Logical Rationale and Reasoned Elaboration, the Full, Relevant
Areas of Environmental Concern
272.
Like the Town Boards consultant, JMC, the Orange County
Planning Department also found the analysis in the FGEIS so deficient that an SGEIS was
required.
273.
The Orange County Planning Department wrote that the SEQRA
analysis failed to substantively identify and document, quantitatively with logical rationale and
reasoned elaboration, the full, relevant areas of environmental concern, or thoroughly analyzed
the areas of environmental concern:
Overall, it is this Departments view that the designated SEQRA
Lead Agency, the Village of Kiryas Joel Board of Trustees, has
failed to substantively identify and document, quantitatively with
logical rationale and reasoned elaboration, the full, relevant areas
of environmental concern, or thoroughly analyzed the areas of
environmental concern identified through scoping or support
determinations made in the FGEIS. As such, we recommend that
the FGEIS be supplemented prior to the contemplated approval of
any annexation alternative based on the comments below.
(Memorandum from Orange County to Village of Kiryas Joel, dated Aug. 21, 2015, at 2.)
274.
The FGEIS analysis was so deficient that the Orange County
Planning Department was compelled to note the obvious nexus between the annexation
46
proposed, subsequent rezonings, and expected land development both immediately and beyond
10 years:
[W]e disagree that the environmental assessment can be viewed in
limited way as a simple municipal boundary change- and as such
more detailed analysis of inevitable, predictable and subsequent
rezonings, land development, and land disturbance activities can be
deferred to another review at another time. There is a nexus
between the annexation proposed, subsequent rezonings, and
expected land development both immediately and beyond 10 years.
(Id.)
275.
Like the Town Boards consultant, the Orange County Planning
Department stated that analysis past 10 years was needed:

[W]e continue to recommend that the analysis for the action go out
beyond just 10 years. There are numerous examples, including the
Village of Kiryas Joels own SEQRA documentation for the
proposed water supply pipeline and related actions including new
source waters north of the Village, where analysis necessarily and
rationally exceeds a very constrained 10 year horizon.
(Id. (emphasis added).)
276.
And, like the Town Boards consultant, the Orange County Planning
Department wrote that the SEQRA reviews artificial 10 year time frame for analysis was fatally
flawed regarding the basic issue of water supply:
[W]ater supply remains a primary concern as an environmental
impact; this topic remains inadequately addressed given the lack of
analysis of the inevitable growth predicted within 10 years and
beyond. We already know today that the Village of Kiryas Joel is
close to being in a state of water supply emergency.
(Id.)
277.
And, also like the Town Boards consultant, JMC, the Orange
County Planning Department continues to view the SEQRA documentation on alternatives as

inadequate. (Id. at 3.)
47
278.
The Department suggest[ed] that there are a fuller range of
alternatives without annexation as well as with annexation that can address smart growth or
managed growth scenarios that will ensure regional environmental quality. (Id.)
Town Boards SEQRA Findings State That Supplementation Is Required, But,
Without Any Explanation, State That the Review Is Adequate For The 164 Petition
279.
The Town Boards SEQRA Findings state that the EIS is so
inadequate, including with respect to the 164 Petition, that an SGEIS need[ed] to be prepared:
The 10 year analysis included in the GEIS considers only a portion
of the potential future impacts. Accordingly, a supplemental GEIS
needs to be prepared to properly address the buildout potential of
the entire 1,207 acres and provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on the anticipated impacts associated with the proposed
annexation and resulting/anticipated increase in density and
population of the 507 acres of existing Town lands as well as the
164 acre alternative annexation.
(Town Boards SEQRA Findings at 2 (emphasis added).)
280.
Without any explanation, however, the Town Boards SEQRA
Findings contradictorily assert that the review was adequate for the 164 Petition.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgement Town Board and Village Board
Votes in Favor of Annexation Violate the
Establishment Clause of the New York State and United States Constitution)
281.
Petitioners/Plaintiffs respectfully repeat and reallege the allegations
set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 280 of this Verified Petition as if fully stated herein.
282.
The
Town
Boards
and
the
Village
Boards
respective
determinations on both the 507 and the 164 Annexation Petitions were unconstitutional decisions
to cede electoral territory to Kiryas Joel, which would result in a constitutionally improper
delegation of political power to the Village. See Kiryas Joel, 114 S. Ct. at 2494 (holding that
48
School Act impermissibly delegated political power to an electorate defined by common

religious belief and practice, in a manner that fails to foreclose religious favoritism).
283.
The Town Boards and the Village Boards determinations with
respect to the Annexation Petitions would, in the absence of judicial intervention, improperly
cause the forced separation that occurs when the government draws political boundaries on the
basis of peoples faith. Id. at 2505 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
284.
Both the 504 and the 164 Annexations would violate the
Establishment Clause of the United State Constitution.

285.
In particular, both Annexations would constitute an improper
delegation of political power based upon religious criteria.

286.
The Town would be unconstitutionally ceding important,
discretionary governmental powers to the Village, which the United States Supreme Court has
already recognized is a political subdivision whose franchise is determined by a religious test.
See Kiryas Joel, 114 S. Ct. 2481.
287.
The Town Board was misplaced in asserting in its Annexation
Resolution that Justice OConnors concurring opinion in Kiryas Joel supports the proposition
that the Boards determination on the Annexation Petitions would not violate the Establishment
Clause.
288.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy specifically noted that
the process for incorporating a Village was largely procedural, and did not necessitate any
discretionary action by the government:
We do not confront the constitutionality of the Kiryas Joel village itself,
and the formation of the village appears to differ from the formation of the
school district in one critical respect. As the Court notes, ante, at 2491, n.
7, the village was formed pursuant to a religion-neutral self-incorporation
49
scheme. Under New York law, a territory with at least 500 residents and
not more than five square miles may be incorporated upon petition by at
least 20 percent of the voting residents of that territory or by the owners of
more than 50 percent of the territory's real property. N.Y. Village Law
2200, 2202 (McKinney 1973 and Supp.1994). Aside from ensuring that
the petition complies with certain procedural requirements, the supervisor
of the town in which the territory is located has no discretion to reject the
petition. 2206; see Decision on Sufficiency of Petition, in App. 8, 14
([T]he hollow provisions of the Village Law ... allow me only to review
the procedural niceties of the petition itself). *730 The residents of the
town then vote upon the incorporation petition in a special election. N.Y.
Village Law 2212 (McKinney 1973). By contrast, the Kiryas Joel
Village School District was created by state legislation. The State of New
York had complete discretion not to enact it. The State thus had a direct
hand in accomplishing the religious segregation.
Id. at 2504 (emphasis added).
289.
Here, the annexation process specifically required the Town Board
to make a discretionary determination as to whether the proposed annexation is in the over-all

public interest. See N.Y. Genl Muni. L. 705.
290.
As Justice Kennedy wrote, There is more than a fine line, however,
between the voluntary association that leads to a political community comprised of people who
share a common religious faith, and the forced separation that occurs when the government
draws explicit political boundaries on the basis of peoples' faith. See Kiryas Joel, 114 S. Ct. at
2504 (emphasis added).
291.
Both Proposed Annexations are both invalid because they would
unconstitutional draw political boundaries based on religious considerations.

292.
The Town Board Members and the Village Board Members who
voted in favor of either Annexation Petition violated the Establishment Clause.

293.
The Town Boards and the Village Boards respective determination
in favor of the Proposed Annexation violated the Establishment Clause.
50
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Article 78 Form and Content of Petitions Violate the
Establishment Clause of the New York State and United States Constitution)
294.
295.
Article 17 of the General Municipal Law must be construed in a
manner that would avoid objectionable consequences, such as unconstitutional results. See, e.g.,
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 143, 459 N.Y.S.2d 743, 747 (1983).
296.
The form and content of an annexation petition that would cause an
unconstitutional result does not substantially comply with Article 17 of the General Municipal
Law. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 705(1)(d).
297.
Inasmuch as both the 507 and the 164 Petitions would cause an
unconstitutional result, they must be dismissed by virtue of such failure to comply with Article
17 of the General Municipal Law. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 705(1)(d).
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Article 78 Arbitrary and Capricious Selection of Lead Agency)
298.
299.
In determining the dispute between the Town Board and the Village
Board as to which agency should serve as the Lead Agency for the subject SEQRA review, the
DEC Commissioner was required to use the following criteria:
(a) whether the anticipated impacts of the action being considered are
primarily of statewide, regional, or local significance (i.e., if such impacts are of primarily local
significance, all other considerations being equal, the local agency involved will be lead agency);
(b) which agency has the broadest governmental powers for
investigation of the impact(s) of the proposed action; and
51
(c) which agency has the greatest capability for providing the most
thorough environmental assessment of the proposed action.
6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.6(b)(5)(v).
300.
In its determination that the Village Board should serve as Lead
Agency, dated January 28, 2015, the DEC Commissioner failed to rationally apply the factors
that are required by DECs own regulations.
301.
The DEC Commissioner was aware that there were serious doubts
about the ability of the Village Board to investigate the impacts of the proposed annexation, and
its capabilities for providing the most thorough environmental assessment of the proposed
annexation, but failed to rationally address these concerns. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.6(b)(5)(v).
302.
Tellingly, the Town Boards own consultant repeatedly found the
SEQRA review led by the Village Board to be insufficient.

303.
Indeed, in its SEQRA Findings, the Town Board stated that
supplemental environmental review was required.

304.
Petitioners already have a pending challenge to the DEC
Commissioners selection of the Village Board as Lead Agency. See Preserve Hudson Valley,
Inc., et al. v. N.Y.S. D.E.C., et al, Index No. 1015-001707 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co.) (Connolly,
J.).
305.
Respondents in that matter have asserted, inter alia, that
Petitioners/Plaintiffs challenge was premature.

306.
Accordingly, Petitioners raise this claim herein in an excess of
307.
In the event that the Court in that prior pending matter determines
caution.
that such challenge was premature, this Court should reverse, nullify, and vacate DECs selection
52
of the Village Board as Lead Agency for the subject SEQRA review, and the SEQRA
proceedings led by the Village Board, accordingly, should be reversed, nullified, and vacated.
AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Article 78 Against Town Board Violation of SEQRA)
308.
309.
SEQRAs
fundamental
policy
is
to
inject
environmental
considerations directly into governmental decision making. Merson v. McNally, 90 N.Y.2d

742, 665 N.Y.S.2d 605, 609 (1997) (citation omitted), quoting Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y. v.
Bd. of Estimate of the City of N.Y., 72 N.Y.2d 674, 536 N.Y.S.2d 33, 35 (1988); see also
Jackson v. N.Y. State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 303 (1986)
(SEQRA makes environmental protection a concern of every agency.).
310.
SEQRAs basic purpose is to require agencies, such as both
Boards here, to incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into their decision making
processes.
6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.1(c) (The basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate the
consideration of environmental factors into the existing planning, review and decision-making
processes of state, regional and local government agencies at the earliest possible time.).
311.
In enacting SEQRA, the State Legislature made clear its intent that
all agencies, including the Town Board and the Village Board, conduct their affairs with an
awareness that they are stewards of the air, water, land, and living resources, and that they are
specifically obligat[ed] to protect the environment for the use and enjoyment of this and all
future generations:
It is the intent of the legislature that all agencies conduct their
affairs with an awareness that they are stewards of the air, water,
land, and living resources, and that they have an obligation to
53
protect the environment for the use and enjoyment of this and all
future generations.
N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 8-0103(8) (emphasis added); see also 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.1(b) (In
adopting SEQR, it was the Legislature's intention that all agencies conduct their affairs with an
awareness that they are stewards of the air, water, land, and living resources, and that they have
an obligation to protect the environment for the use and enjoyment of this and all future
generations. (emphasis added)).
312.
The State Legislature further intended that all agencies, including
both Boards, must give due consideration to preventing environmental damage when
considering actions that may, like the Annexation, adversely impact the environment:
It is the intent of the legislature that all agencies which regulate activities
of individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect
the quality of the environment shall regulate such activities so that due
consideration is given to preventing environmental damage.
N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 8-0103(9) (emphasis added).
313.
The State Legislature further intended that to the fullest extent
possible all laws, including Article 17 of the State General Municipal Law (the Municipal
Annexation Law) be implemented in accordance with SEQRAs salutary purposes. N.Y. Envtl.
Conserv. Law 8-0103(6) (It is the intent of the legislature that to the fullest extent possible the
policies, statutes, regulations, and ordinances of the state and its political subdivisions should be
interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in [SEQRA]. (emphasis
added)).
314.
SEQRA was specifically enacted to compel agencies, such as both
Boards, to strike a balance between social and economic goals and legitimate concerns about
54
the environment. Jackson, 503 N.Y.S.2d at 303. Agencies, such as the Boards here, are required
to consider environmental factors together with social and economic factors:
It is the intent of the legislature that the protection and enhancement of the
environment, human and community resources shall be given appropriate
weight with social and economic considerations in public policy. Social,
economic, and environmental factors shall be considered together in
reaching decisions on proposed activities.
N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 8-0103(7); 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.1(d) ([I]t is the intention of this Part
that a suitable balance of social, economic and environmental factors be incorporated into the
planning and decision-making processes of state, regional and local agencies.); see also
Jackson, 503 N.Y.S.2d at 303 (In proposing action, an agency must give consideration not only
to social and economic factors, but also to protection and enhancement of the environment.).
315.
Respectfully, the subject SEQRA review evinces a willful disregard
for the State Legislatures aforementioned goals in enacting SEQRA.

The EIS Process Is The Heart Of SEQRA
316.
The heart of SEQRA is the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
process, which is required for any action, such as the Annexation, which may have a
significant effect on the environment. Jackson, 503 N.Y.S.2d at 304, quoting N.Y. Envtl.
Conserv. Law 8-0109(2); see also Akpan v. Koch, 75 N.Y.2d 561, 555 N.Y.S.2d 16, 19 (1990)
(The primary purpose of SEQRA is to inject environmental considerations directly into
governmental decision making. (citation omitted)).
317.
The EIS process obligated both Boards to assess environmental
impacts and develop enforceable mitigation measures specifically to avoid ecological points of
no return. Williamsburg Around the Bridge Block Assn v. Giuliani, 223 A.D.2d 64, 644
N.Y.S.2d 252, 257 (1st Dept. 1996) (The purpose of an EIS is to act as an environmental
55
alarm bell, the purpose of which is to alert public officials to environmental shifts before
those changes reach ecological points of no return. (citation omitted)).
318.
To that end, SEQRA mandates the preparation of an EIS when a
proposed development project may have a significant effect on the environment to ensure that
appropriate mitigation measures are developed:
The basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate the consideration of
environmental factors into the existing planning, review and decisionmaking processes of state, regional and local government agencies at the
earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQR requires that all
agencies determine whether the actions they directly undertake, fund or
approve may have a significant impact on the environment, and, if it is
determined that the action may have a significant adverse impact, prepare
or request an environmental impact statement.
6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.1(c) (emphasis added); see also N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 8-109(1)
(affirmatively establishing that [a]gencies shall use all practicable means to realize the policies
and goals set forth in [SEQRA] article, and shall act and choose alternatives which, consistent
with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable,
minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects, including effects revealed in the environmental
impact statement process. (emphasis added)).
319.
As the Village Board, in particular, should have been aware, Courts
will not accept inadequate environmental review, no matter how well packaged or by whom it
was performed. See Cnty. of Orange v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 11 Misc. 3d 1056(A), 815 N.Y.S.2d
494 (Sup. Ct. Orange Cnty. 2005) (One cannot presume that the requisite hard look was taken
based on the thickness of the DEIS or because the [agencys] consultants were highly regard in
their fields.), affd as modified, 44 A.D.3d 765, 844 N.Y.S.2d 57 (2d Dept. 2007).
320.
As the Appellate Division, Second Department held in County of
Orange, which concerned the Villages proposed water pipeline:
56

The Village did not fully identif[y] the nature and extent of all of
the wetlands that would be disturbed or affected by the construction of the proposed water
pipeline, how those wetlands would be disturbed, and how such disturbance, if any, would affect
the salutary flood control, pollution absorption, groundwater recharge, and habitat functions of
those wetlands;
[N]either the DEIS nor the FEIS fully identified the location,
nature, or extent of the bodies of surface water into which wastewater from the proposed
treatment plant would be discharged, and which State classes and standards of quality and purity
apply to those water bodies;
Nor did the DEIS or the FEIS adequately identify how much
effluent would be discharged into those bodies of water over what periods of time, what the
nature of the effluent might be, and what the effect upon those bodies of water are likely to be;
[T]he DEIS and the FEIS were [also] rendered inadequate by the
absence of a site-specific and design-specific phase 1B archaeological study; and
[T]he DEIS and the FEIS provided no demographic analysis or

projections with respect to the effect of the availability of a steady and stable supply of potable
water on population movement into or out of the Village.
Id. at 61-62.
321.
For these reasons, the Second Department held that the Village
Board of Trustees failed to take the requisite hard look under SEQRA. Id. at 62.
322.
Neither the Town Board nor the Village Board can reasonably
expect that this similarly flawed environmental review would pass muster.
Supplementation Should Have Been Required To Provide
Opportunities For The Boards And The Public To Comment Upon
The Substantial Information Missing From The DGEIS
323.
As the Town Boards own consultant and many others pointed out,
where, as here, significant new information is required subsequent to the filing of a draft
environmental impact statement, an supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) is
required:
The law recognizes that in situations in which significantly new
information has been discovered subsequent to the filing of a draft
EIS, which new information is relevant to the environmental
57
impact of the proposed action, a supplemental EIS containing this

information should be circulated to the relevant agencies so as to
insure that the decision making authorities are well informed.
Horn v. Intl Bus. Machines Corp., 110 A.D.2d 87, 493 N.Y.S.2d 184, 192 (2d Dept. 1985),
appeal denied, 67 N.Y.2d 602, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1027 (1986).
324.
Of particular relevance here, the Village Board should have, as a
matter of law, subject the multiple unaddressed issues outlined herein and in the comments of
other impacted agencies and individuals to further public review:
[C]ourts have cautioned that the omission of required information from a
draft EIS cannot be cured by simply including the required data in the
final EIS since the abbreviated comment period for the final EIS is not a
substitute for the extended period and comprehensive procedures for
public and agency scrutiny of and comment on the draft EIS.
Id., quoting Webster Assocs. v. Town of Webster, 59 N.Y.2d 220, 228, 464 N.Y.S.2d 431
(1983).
325.
As the Town Boards own SEQRA Findings recognize, to ensure
that the Town Board and the Village Board, other impacted agencies, and the public have an
opportunity to comment on the substantial information and analysis that is missing from the
DGEIS, the Village Board should have required an SGEIS that contains this missing
information.
Irrational and Arbitrary Constraint of Analysis To 10-Years
326.
As the Town Boards own consultant, the Orange County Planning
Department, the MWCSD, and many others pointed out, the subject SEQRA reviews arbitrary
use of 2025 as the outside date for analysis is irrational.
327.
SEQRA mandates the consideration of all impacts which may be
reasonably expected to result from the proposed action, and this includes subsequent actions
58
which are likely to be undertaken as a result thereof. Schulz v. N.Y. State Dept. of Envtl.
Conservation, 200 A.D.2d 793, 606 N.Y.S.2d 459, 461 (3d Dept. 1994) (citations omitted).
328.
As the Town Boards own SEQRA Findings recognize, it was not
even possible for the Boards to consider meaningful mitigation measures without consideration
of clearly foreseeable and contemplated build-out scenarios.
See Halperin v. City of New
Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98, 105 (2d Dept. 2005) (holding agency land use
determination can only be deemed rational if they have some objective factual basis).
329.
As the Town Boards SEQRA Findings recognize, it was irrational
to use a ten (10)-year window for analysis where, as here, the Boards are aware that the impacts
of the Proposed Annexation would range well past that date. See Develop Dont Destroy
(Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Dev. Corp., 94 A.D.3d 508, 942 N.Y.S.2d 477, 479 (1st Dept.),
leave to appeal denied by 19 N.Y.3d 806, 950 N.Y.S.2d 104 (2012).
330.
In Develop Dont Destroy, the Court held that the respondent
agency acted arbitrarily when it based its analysis on a ten (10)-year build-out scenario despite
the fact that it was aware of a Development Agreement that provided for a significantly extended
substantial completion date, twenty-five (25) years from the study date. See id.
331.
Here, both the Town Board and the Village Board were aware that
the Village was relying on growth projections for the Annexation lands through the year 2045.
332.
The Villages Updated Budget Analysis, which the Village
submitted to the State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) in connection with the
bonding of the Aqueduct Connection Project (EFC #16906), relied on projections through the
year 2045.
59
333.
In particular, the Village projected that there would be 8,550 new
residential connections and 1,500 new commercial connections by the year 2045.
334.
Assuming six (6) people would live in each new residence, this
contemplates the addition of 50,000 people.

335.
In response to this analysis, EFC asked the Village if the growth
projections for the Village [in the Budget Analysis could] be viewed as reasonable given that the
available space within the Village does not support the long-term projections. (See Aqueduct
Connection Project Business Plan Supplement II, dated Jan. 31, 2014.)
336.
In response, the Village advised EFC about the proposed
Annexation, and stated that if indeed annexed into the Village, that opportunity [to rezone or
develop the subject properties] exists and would reasonably accommodate the anticipated
growth described in the Business Plan. (Id. (emphasis added).)
337.
In the same paragraph, the Village noted the maximum allowable
development under existing Town Zoning, and added that [t]his does not account, however, for
potential rezoning for increased densities. (Id.)4
338.
As such, not only did the Village make clear to EFC that its business
model for the bonding of the aqueduct depended upon illegally increasing the allowable density
The Villages representations to EFC conflict with the maxim that municipalities are not
permitted to use annexation to evade current zoning constraints. See, e.g., Bd. of Trustees of Spring
Valley v. Town of Ramapo, 264 A.D.2d 519, 694 N.Y.S.2d 712, 714 (2d Dept. 1999) (Annexation may
not be used as a means by which the owner of land in one municipality may escape the effect of that
municipalitys local legislation by having the land transferred to an adjoining municipality.); Bd. of
Trustees, Vill. of Pomona v. Town of Ramapo, 567 N.Y.S.2d 791, 793, 171 A.D.2d 861, 863 (2d Dept.
1991) ([T]he Village may not use annexation to subvert the development of an adjoining municipality's
property pursuant to a lawfully enacted zoning ordinance.); Vill. of Skaneateles v. Town of Skaneateles,
115 A.D.2d 282, 496 N.Y.S.2d 185, 186 (4th Dept. 1985) (We have found no precedent approving the
use of annexation as a device by which the owner of land in one municipality may escape the effect of
that municipality's local legislation by having the land transferred to an adjoining municipality.).
60
of the Annexation area, but it also unambiguously signaled that this increase in density would be
sufficient to accommodate the full development projected in the Budget Analysis -- 8,550 new
339.
The build-out scenarios considered in the GEIS should have
included the development projected by the Village to EFC -- i.e., 8,550 new residential
connections and 1,500 new commercial connections by the year 2045.
340.
Again, assuming six (6) people living in each new household, this
could inject more than 50,000 people into the annexed areas.
341.
As such, at minimum, the GEIS should have considered the adverse
impacts of this extraordinarily intense high-density development on the environment and

neighboring communities.
342.
Thus, this is not a case where development after ten (10) years was
nothing more than unsupported speculation.

343.
Instead, as established by the Villages representations to EFC,
high-density development through 2045 is clearly foreseeable. Cf. Fisher v. Giuliani, 280
A.D.2d 13, 720 N.Y.S.2d 50, 55 (1st Dept. 2001).
344.
As the Village Board implicitly recognized when it issued the
Positive Declaration requiring the instant DGEIS, this is not a situation where the environmental
review of an annexation should be limited because development objectives are unknown. Cf.
City Council of Watervliet v. Town Bd. of Colonie, 3 N.Y.3d 508, 789 N.Y.S.2d 88, 93-94
(2004).
61
345.
To the contrary, the Village has already represented to a State
agency that it will promote development at least through 2045 at intense levels on the territories
it would like to annex in order to fund significant infrastructure expansion.
346.
As such, the environmental review should have be[en] more
extensive and address the specific use of the property [that the Village laid out for EFC] in
evaluating the related environmental effects. Id. at 94.
347.
Notably, the SEQRA Findings adopted by the Village in connection
with the development of the water supply pipeline, which is the subject of the Villages
discussion with EFC, state that [t]he project does not involve the expansion of the Villages
distribution system into previously undeveloped or subserviced areas but will allow the existing
Village to be served with a new source of water supply. (Resolution Adopting Amended
Findings Statement (Mar. 31, 2009), at 4 (emphasis added).) The Findings indicate that the
pipeline was not intended to serve areas outside the Villages present boundaries. Certainly, no
environmental review has been conducted in this regard.
348.
The artificial use of 2025 as the end date for analysis, for example,
results in an artificial capping of projected development of 3,825 units. (See DGEIS at 2-7 &
3.1-15.)
349.
Ultimately, the DGEISs use of the year 2025 as an end date for
analysis appears intended to avoid grappling with issues that would clearly arise after that date,
such as insufficient infrastructure.
350.
Regardless of the motivation for using 2025 as an end date, it
improperly and irrationally constrained the analysis.
62
Failure To Develop Mitigations Measures

Or Thresholds For Further Analysis
351.
Ultimately the subject GEIS is a meaningless document under
352.
It fails SEQRAs fundamental purpose of developing legitimate
SEQRA.
mitigation measures to address the significant adverse environmental impacts of the Proposed
Annexation.
353.
Aside from all other problems affecting the vague and illegal
mitigation it ultimately purports to propose -- i.e., further environmental review by the Village
down the road -- it would be irrational for the Boards to rely on this mitigation because the
Villages history provides no reasonable basis to believe that such review would ever happen.
354.
At the end of the SEQRA process, both the Village Board and the
Town Board needed to certify that, inter alia, they have considered and adopted all practicable
mitigation measures. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.11(d).
355.
The GEISs failure to propose any meaningful mitigation measures
or thresholds for further review, however, left the Boards without any objective factual basis to
make their necessary findings. See Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 809
N.Y.S.2d 98, 105 (2d Dept. 2005) (establishing that an agencys land use determination can only
be deemed rational if it has some objective factual basis), leave to appeal denied by 6 N.Y.3d
890, 817 N.Y.S.2d 624 (Table), and by 7 N.Y.3d 708, 822 N.Y.S.2d 482 (Table) (2006).
356.
SEQRA is not merely a disclosure statute; it imposes far more
action-forcing or substantive requirements on state and local decisionmakers than [the federal
National Environmental Policy Act] imposes on their federal counterparts.
Jackson, 503
N.Y.S.2d at 303; N.Y.S. D.E.C., SEQR Handbook, at 3 (3d ed. 2010) (stating that SEQRA
63
mandates that agencies act on the substantive information produced by the environmental
review).
357.
SEQRAs action forcing requirement can lead to project denial if
the adverse impacts are overriding and adequate mitigation or alternatives are not available.
SEQR Handbook, at 3.
358.
Courts will vacate agencies SEQRA review where the
municipality has opted for maximum development of the land area involved without proposing
any substantively salutary mitigating measures which would minimize the adverse environmental
effect of its decision. Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Albany, 130 A.D.2d 1, 518
N.Y.S.2d 466, 468 (3d Dept. 1987) (emphasis added), leave to appeal denied by 70 N.Y.2d 610,
522 N.Y.S.2d 111 (1987).
359.
The Boards should not have taken action that sets the stage for
maximum development of the territories at issue without proposing mitigation measures.

360.
In addition to all of the other flaws in the GEISs Land Use and
Zoning Section, for example, the only apparent mitigation measure offered is that it anticpate[s]
that the Village of Kiryas Joel will establish a master plan committee to study opportunities and
constraints of the 507 acres as it relates to the Village goals for its existing and future residents,
and make specific recommendations for future land use decisions. (See DGEIS at 3.1-18.)
361.
Given the Villages historical and demonstrable poor track record of
land use and environmental compliance, the notion that the Village would form a committee
that would establish a reasonable framework for development in the Annexation territories is
irrational and reliance on that notion is arbitrary and capricious.
64
362.
The notion that the Village would form a viable committee to
establish a reasonable framework for development in the Annexation territories is particularly

irrational in light of the fact that Villages serial violation of basic municipal planning and
zoning requirements, including that the Villages Planning and Zoning Board members do not
satisfy the State-required training programs;
363.
Moreover, deferring the development of mitigation measures to an
indefinite time where it would be addressed by an unknown committee violates SEQRA on

multiple grounds.
364.
First, it is axiomatic that by deferring resolution of potential
environmental issues until after the conclusion of the SEQRA process, an agency fail[s] to take
the requisite hard look at [] area[s] of environmental concern. Penfield Panorama Area Cmty.,
Inc. v. Town of Penfield Planning Bd., 253 A.D.2d 342, 688 N.Y.S.2d 848, 854 (4th Dept. 1999)
(annulling Planning Boards approval for, inter alia, deferring resolution of hazardous waste
remediation issue); see also Silvercup Studios, Inc. v. Power Auth. of N.Y., 285 A.D.2d 598, 729
N.Y.S.2d 47 (2d Dept. 2001).
365.
As stated in a seminal SEQRA Decision, H.O.M.E.S. v. N.Y. State
Urban Dev. Corp., agencies, like the Boards, simply cannot [l]ike the proverbial ostrich . . . put
out of sight and mind a clear environmental problem. 69 A.D.2d 222, 418 N.Y.S.2d 827, 83132 (4th Dept. 1979) (finding that the agency failed to take hard look where it vaguely
recognized the existence of potential adverse environmental impacts, but, in an Alice-InWonderland manner, simply relied upon general assurances that after the problems developed
[other entities] would adequately mitigate them by some unspecified action).
65
366.
Second, the analysis and development of meaningful mitigation
measures to address the adverse impacts of the Proposed Annexation on Land Use and Zoning
(as well as all other areas of environmental concern) cannot be delegated to another municipal
agency or entity, such as the unknown committee referred to in the DGEIS. See Coca-Cola
Bottling Co. of N.Y. v. Bd. of Estimate of City of N.Y., 72 N.Y.2d 674, 536 N.Y.S.2d 33, 37
(1988) (holding that an agency responsible for reviewing environmental impacts of an action
under SEQRA cannot delegate its review responsibilities to another agency; final determination
of relevant issues must remain with the agencies charged with evaluating them under SEQRA).
367.
The GEIS should have proposed mitigation measures for the
Proposed Annexations adverse impacts on Land Use and Zoning (and other areas of
environmental concern), for the Boards to consider.
368.
Similarly, the public has a right to comment on mitigation measures
proposed to address the adverse impacts caused by the Proposed Annexation on Land Use and
Zoning (as well as all other areas of environmental concern).
369.
The Court of Appeals has affirmed that mitigation measures of
undisputed importance [cannot] escape public comment and agency review under SEQRA.
Bronx Comm. for Toxic Free Sch. v. N.Y. City Sch. Const. Auth., 20 N.Y.3d 148, 958 N.Y.S.2d
65, 69 (2012).
370.
In Bronx Committee, the Court of Appeals held that an agency erred
in postponing detailed consideration of long-term maintenance and monitoring measures relating

to a proposed school project on a contaminated site.
66
371.
Similarly, here, the Boards cannot defer consideration of concrete
mitigation measures needed to address the clearly foreseeable significant adverse environmental
impacts posed by the Proposed Annexation.
372.
The GEIS should have considered if the problem of unregulated
development could best be avoided by rejecting the Proposed Annexation.

373.
The GEIS should have considered whether the environment,
including the human environment, would be best protected by maintaining the Towns
stewardship over the territories at issue.
374.
The GEIS should have considered if the adverse impacts could be
avoided by abiding by the currently existing zoning in the Town.

375.
The GEIS should have considered clear and enforceable thresholds
for future project specific reviews.

376.
The GEIS should have considered at what point development in the
territories at issue would outpace the capacity of the environment. See N.Y. Envtl. Conserv.
Law 8-0103(5).
377.
The GEIS should have considered at what point development in the
territories at issue will surpass the capacity to provide water for it.
378.
The GEIS should also have addressed the capacity of the impacted
environment, including water services and the Ramapo River, to handle development.
379.
The GEIS should have developed enforceable mitigation measures
related to those critical thresholds.
67
380.
The GEIS should have considered an enforceable monitoring
program to ensure that critical thresholds related to development, including sewer and water, are
not surpassed.
381.
The GEIS should have addressed how any thresholds identified in it
would be enforced or could be relied upon in light of the Villages extremely faulty history of
environmental and land use compliance and enforcement.
382.
The GEIS should have addressed what thresholds were needed to
meet SEQRAs policy of [p]romoting patterns of development that minimize adverse impact
on the environment. See N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 8-0101(3)(c).
383.
Similarly, the GEIS should have considered phased development, to
tie development to environmental points of no return, an enforceable monitoring program, and

other critical means for avoiding and reducing environmental impacts.
384.
In enacting SEQRA, the State Legislature specifically recognized
that the capacity of the environment is limited, and that agencies implementing SEQRA must
identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all
coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds from being reached:
The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the
legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify
any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state
and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds from
being reached.
N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 8-0103(5) (emphasis added).
385.
Thus, SEQRA requires agencies, such as both Boards, to adopt
mitigation measures to prevent critical thresholds (or environmental points of no return) from
being surpassed.
68
386.
Thus, SEQRA specifically requires that GEISs consider, among
other things, [t]hresholds and conditions that would trigger the need for supplemental
determinations of significance or site-specific EISs. SEQR Handbook, at 146; see also 6
N.Y.C.R.R. 617.10(c) (providing that GEISs and their findings must set forth conditions or
criteria under which future actions will be undertaken or approved, including requirements for
any subsequent SEQR compliance. This may include thresholds and criteria for supplemental
EISs to reflect specific significant impacts, such as site specific impacts, that were not adequately
addressed or analyzed in the generic EIS).
387.
DEC specifically states that [t]he generic EIS should identify upper
limits of acceptable growth inducement in order to provide guidance to the decision maker.
SEQR Handbook, at 147 (emphasis added).
388.
The Town Board and the Village Board, however. failed to establish
concrete mitigation measures for the significant adverse impacts that are likely to result from the
Annexation.
389.
The Town Board and the Village Board irrationally failed to assess
how many units could reasonably be developed in the territories proposed for annexation in light
of recognized environmental constraints, including sewer and water capacities. See N.Y. Envtl.
Conserv. Law 8-0103(5).
390.
The Town Board and the Village Board relied on the illusory
premise that, after Annexation, the Village would conduct SEQRA review on a case-by-case
basis.
391.
This premise is irrational because the Village has historically
avoided compliance with land use and environmental laws, including SEQRA.
69
392.
Moreover, it fails to assess the critical thresholds at issue here or
discuss what the capacity of the affected environment is.

393.
The GEIS should have discussed what actions are required to
prevent critical thresholds related to development in the territories at issue from being reached.
Failure To Rationally Address Villages Systemic
Disregard For Environmental Review And Land Use Laws
394.
As set forth in the Administrative Record, including in submissions
provided by United Monroe, the Village has demonstrated a routine failure to comply with
SEQRA, failure to satisfy local planning and zoning requirements, and repeated violation of
federal and state environmental laws.
395.
The Town Board and the Village Board, however, failed to identify,
much less take seriously, the environmental implications of the Villages historic record of
environmental and land use noncompliance.
396.
Absent a functioning planning process, future development under
the Villages jurisdiction will continue to proceed without limitation or concern for the
environment, the surrounding community, much less the residents of the Village itself.
397.
The
Villages
systemic
failure
to
enforce
environmental
requirements causes adverse impacts.

398.
The Town Boards and the Village Boards failure to address the
Villages pattern of noncompliance with established planning, zoning and environmental laws,
regulations, and practices, or to discuss the potential adverse environmental impacts that may
flow from the Villages consistent disregard for legally mandated requirements, was irrational.
70
399.
This error is particularly egregious because the only so-called
mitigations discussed in the GEIS depend upon the Villages prospective adherence to land use
and environmental requirements.
400.
The SEQRA review was inadequate to fulfill its intended function
of guiding the Town Boards and the Village Boards consideration of whether Annexation is in
the over-all public interest pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law..
401.
The Town Board and the Village Board rationally should have
considered how the over-all public interest would be affected if, as can be reasonably anticipated,
the Villages poor track record of compliance with fundamental land use, zoning, and
environmental laws, and the attendant unregulated development, were broadcast to a larger area
as the result of Annexation.
402.
The Town Board and the Village Board, however, both audaciously
ignored this critical issue.

403.
The Boards should have considered the potential significant adverse
environmental impacts that unregulated, high-density development in the Annexation territories

would have on residents of the Village and of the remaining Town. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law
711(1) (requiring that Boards entertaining annexation petitions consider, inter alia, potential
effects on the territory proposed to be annexed as well as the remaining area of the local
government or governments in which the territory is situated).
404.
The Villages lack of functioning planning and zoning processes,
and its disinclination to abide by State-mandated environmental review processes, would

significantly adversely impact residents of both the Village and the Town, as well as neighboring
municipalities.
71
405.
Stormwater management during and after construction, for example,
is just one area where the Villages environmental mismanagement could adversely impact
residents of neighboring municipalities.
406.
Absent the Villages implementation of basic, require stormwater
controls, mismanaged runoff from increased impervious surfaces in the Annexation area could
negatively impact neighboring properties in Monroe, causing flooding, damaging water quality
and affecting other natural resources.
407.
The Town Board and the Village Boards failure to consider that the
Villages poor track record of complying with any legal requirements is arbitrary and irrational.
408.
Because of their failure to address the Villages proven record of
environmental noncompliance, both Boards lacked the substantial evidence they each needed to
issue defensible SEQRA Findings, see 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.11, as well as to assess whether the
Proposed Annexation is in the overall public interest. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 711.
Irrational Consideration of Water Impacts
409.
The use of an outside date of 2025 in the subject SEQRA analysis
was particularly inapt with respect to potential water usage.

410.
The GEIS failed to address how the Village would provide adequate
water for Village residents past 2025.

411.
Indeed, the DGEIS actually indicated that the Village would outstrip
available water capacity before 2025.

412.
The GEIS failed to discuss what coordinated actions are necessary
to prevent development in the territories at issue from surpassing the capacity of the environment
to supply water. See N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 8-0103(5).
72
413.
The GEIS should have set forth what the Villages anticipated water
demand past 2025 and through 2045 would be, with and without the Proposed Annexation, using
a reasonable worst case scenario. See Chinese Staff & Workers Assn v. City of New York, 68
N.Y.2d 359, 509 N.Y.S.2d 499, 503 (1986).
414.
The GEIS should have specifically identify upper limits of
acceptable growth with the 2.54 mgd limitation stated in the DGEIS in mind. See SEQR
Handbook, at 147.
415.
The DGEIS conceded that extending water service to land outside
the Village is a discretionary action of the Village, such that the Village could extend water
service to land outside the Village on a case by case basis. (DGEIS at 3.5-11.)
416.
The GEIS should have explained if, without the Annexation, growth
could be accommodated using the Villages water services.

417.
The GEIS failed to consider rational mitigation measures for the
Proposed Annexations potential significant adverse impacts on water. See Save the Pine Bush,
Inc., 518 N.Y.S.2d at 468 (rejecting SEQRA review where the municipality has opted for
maximum development of the land area involved without proposing any substantively salutary
mitigating measures which would minimize the adverse environmental effect of its decision
(emphasis added)).
418.
Ultimately, the Town Board and the Village Board erred because
they failed to assess the level of development that could reasonably be supported given the
limitations on available water. See N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 8-0103(5).
73
419.
Each Board should have addressed patterns of development that
would avoid overstretching the available water supply. See N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 80101(3)(c).
420.
The Boards respective SEQRA analysis should have resulted in
concrete mitigation measures to address significant adverse impacts posed by the Proposed
Annexation, and to prevent the area from reaching an ecological point of no return. See
Williamsburg Around the Bridge Block Assn, 644 N.Y.S.2d at 257.
421.
The Boards, for example, should have considered clear and
enforceable thresholds for future project specific reviews and monitoring programs. See SEQR
Handbook, at 147. This discussion should have included the merit of phased development tied to
any such thresholds or monitoring programs. See id.
Irrational Consideration of Impacts On Community Character
422.
A rational discussion of visual impacts and community character is
crucial to the analysis under the State Municipal Annexation Law as to whether the proposed
annexation is in the over-all public interest. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 711.
423.
As the Court of Appeals has held, SEQRA analysis is not limited to
the physical impacts of a proposed action. Chinese Staff & Workers Assn v. City of New York,
68 N.Y.2d 359, 509 N.Y.S.2d 499, 503 (1986).
424.
It is well-settled that the environmental concerns covered by
SEQRA include socio-economic concerns and impact on existing community character. N.Y.
Envtl. Conserv. Law 8-0105(6) (defining environment as physical conditions which will be
affected by a proposed action, including . . . existing patterns of population concentration,
74
distribution, or growth, and existing community or neighborhood character (emphasis added)).

As the Court of Appeals has held:
[T]he impact that a project may have on population patterns or
existing community character, with or without a separate impacts
on the physical environment, is a relevant concern in an
environmental analysis since the [SEQRA] statute includes these
concerns as elements of the environment.
Chinese Staff, 509 N.Y.S.2d at 503.
425.
This includes the potential displacement of local residents and
businesses, regardless of whether the Proposed Annexation may effect these impacts primarily
or secondarily or in the short terms or in the long term. Id. at 503-04.
426.
It is also well-settled law that the environmental concerns covered
by SEQRA include aesthetics and visual impacts. See, e.g., WEOK Broad. Corp. v. Planning
Bd. of Lloyd, 79 N.Y.2d 373, 583 N.Y.S.2d 170, 176 (1992) (indicating that consideration of
negative aesthetic impacts, such as the visual effect of radio transmission towers on the local
community, can be an important factor in SEQRA review and can constitute a sufficient basis
upon which to base SEQRA determinations); Scenic Hudson v. Town of Fishkill Town Bd., 258
A.D.2d 654, 685 N.Y.S.2d 777, 780 (2d Dept. 1999) (annulling Town Board rezoning, and
indicating that EIS should have been prepared where proposed action would have a significant
negative impact on the regions visual environment, air quality and public health and safety,
among other things).
427.
Here, the Town Board and the Village Board did not fully consider
the impacts that the proposed Annexation, as well as each potential development scenario, would
have on the character of the adjoining communities. (See DGEIS at 3.7-3 (concluding that
future development could disturb virtually all of the developable land in some fashion).)
75
428.
Their analyses should have included potential impacts on existing
patterns of population concentration, distribution, or growth. See N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 80105(6).
429.
The respective Boards analyses should have considered the
consequences of converting rural land to high density development.

430.
The respective Boards should have considered the potential
displacement of Town residents, including displacement resulting from declining home values.
431.
Both Boards should have addressed the aesthetic and visual impacts
of the Proposed Annexation to surrounding communities in both the Town and the Village.
432.
Mitigation measures should have been proposed to limit any
potential adverse impacts on visual resources, including scenic views.

Irrational Consideration Of Impacts On
Monroe-Woodbury Central School District
433.
A rational discussion of the impacts of Annexation on public
education is crucial to the analysis under the Municipal Annexation Law as to whether the
proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest.
434.
The Town Board and the Village Board did not fully consider the
impacts that the proposed Annexation would have on the MWCSD.

435.
The MWCSD, in its June 22nd Letter, concluded that The Proposed
Petitions for Annexation are not in the Overall Best Interest of the Monroe-Woodbury Central
School District.
436.
The MWCSD identified multiple serious errors and omissions,
which were later ignored or dismissed without analysis in the FGEIS, the Town Board, and the
Village Board:
76
MWCSD notes that 10 years is an artificial time frame on which to base

the analysis of the impacts.
[N]otably absent is any documentation on the amount of private or public

school classroom space needed to accommodate the growth, timelines for
proposed construction, recitation of what is currently being constructed,
the cost of such construction, the impact to the tax base of the construction
or any other of the myriad impacts that result from such and should be
factored into the impacts.
Referring to the DGEISs use of $1,700 as the cost of support services per
pupil it would be obligated to provide, it wrote: The actual number for
the cost of services during the 2014-15 school year is $2,986.
In addition, MWCSD provides education services for special needs

students. Again, the DGEIS failed to verify the costs associated with
determining the fiscal impact of the annexation on the District. The
MWCSD went on to point out that the average cost is $89,000 per
student, not $79,000 as asserted in the DGEIS.
[T]he analysis applied to determine future public school taxes in the

DGEIS is misleading. [It] does not accurately reflect the manner in
calculating taxes and as illustrated represents an artificial windfall to
MWCSD.
Of significant concern, the MWCSD may experience a decrease in state

aid due to the increased housing.
437.
The MWCSD expressed its concern over the potential impact either
Annexation might have on the Kiryas Joel Union Free School District (KJUFSD), stating that
certain State Education Law (which is, in any event, of dubious constitutionality) provides
authority to the Village to create its own school district with boundaries that are coterminous
with that of the Village.
438.
Should either Annexation occur, the MWCSD explained that the
school district and the Village would no longer be coterminous, perhaps threatening the very
existence of the KJUFSD due to non-compliance with the law.
77
439.
The MWCSD also addressed the prospect of a boundary change as
had been proposed, pointing out that the impacts of such an action have not been researched or
determined so the annexations must be analyzed without the spector of such.
440.
The MWCSD pointed out that the factors to be considered are
the educational interests of the students involved, the effect of the transfer on the tax revenues of
the districts involved and the effect of the transfer on the educational programs of the school
from which the property is transferred.
441.
The MWCSD commented that the successful completion of a
boundary change should MWCSD support it after the impacts have been determined is far
from certain: [B]oundary changes are limited by law and the unpredictable decisions of
government officials and it cannot be relied on as a panacea to address these impacts.
442.
An alteration of the KJUFSD could possibly engender a challenge to
its legality much like the three successful ones that arose after its original creation.
443.
A successful legal challenge to that school district for any reason
could put the Village back into the MWCSD, potentially creating a dysfunctional situation like
that in East Ramapo.
444.
The Town Boards SEQRA Findings state that the EIS is so
inadequate, including with respect to the 164 Petition, that an SGEIS is required.
445.
There was no rational basis for the Town Board SEQRA Findings to
inconsistently assert that the GEIS review was adequate for the 164 Petition.
78
AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Article 78 Against Village Board - Violation of SEQRA)
446.
447.
The Village Boards SEQRA Findings are flawed in multiple
respects, including their arbitrary and irrational use of 2025 as the outside date for impacts
analysis.
448.
As the Town Boards consultant, the Orange County Planning
Department, and many others pointed out, the subject SEQRA review was fundamentally flawed
because it limited analysis to 10 years out to end impacts analysis at 2025.
449.
The Village itself, however, submitted projections to the State
Environmental Facilities Corporation for incredibly high density development through 2045,
which, in the absence of rational mitigation measures, will cause unsustainable impacts on water,
sewer, and many other areas of environmental concern.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Article 78 Improper Use of Annexation to Upzone)
450.
451.
Again, Article 17 of the General Municipal Law must also be
construed in a manner that would avoid objectionable consequences, such as mischievous or

disastrous consequences. See, e.g., N.Y. Stat. 148.
452.
Inasmuch as the Petitions are being advanced with the aim of
improperly rezoning the land at issue, they must be dismissed by virtue of such failure to comply
with Article 17 of the General Municipal Law. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 705(1)(d).
79
453.
The subject Petitions also constitute an improper effort to avoid
complying with the Towns current zoning because the goal of the Proposed Annexations is to
rezone the subject land to allow high density housing.
454.
It is axiomatic that municipalities are not permitted to use
annexation to evade current zoning constraints. See, e.g., Bd. of Trustees of Spring Valley v.
Town of Ramapo, 264 A.D.2d 519, 694 N.Y.S.2d 712, 714 (2d Dept. 1999) (Annexation may
not be used as a means by which the owner of land in one municipality may escape the effect of
that municipalitys local legislation by having the land transferred to an adjoining
municipality.); Bd. of Trustees, Vill. of Pomona v. Town of Ramapo, 567 N.Y.S.2d 791, 793,
171 A.D.2d 861, 863 (2d Dept. 1991) ([T]he Village may not use annexation to subvert the
development of an adjoining municipality's property pursuant to a lawfully enacted zoning
ordinance.); Vill. of Skaneateles v. Town of Skaneateles, 115 A.D.2d 282, 496 N.Y.S.2d 185,
186 (4th Dept. 1985) (We have found no precedent approving the use of annexation as a device
by which the owner of land in one municipality may escape the effect of that municipality's local
legislation by having the land transferred to an adjoining municipality.).
455.
Here, it is clear that if either Annexation were allowed, the Village
intends to change the zoning applicable to the lands at issue to allow for high density
development in the Annexation Area.
456.
According to the Villages Updated Budget Analysis that the
Village submitted to the State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) in connection with
the bonding of the Aqueduct Connection Project (EFC #16906), the Village projected that there
would be 8,550 new residential connections and 1,500 new commercial connections by the year
2045.
80
457.
Assuming six (6) people would live in each new residence, this
contemplates the addition of 50,000 people.

458.
In response to this analysis, EFC asked if the growth projections
for the Village [in the Budget Analysis could] be viewed as reasonable given that the available
space within the Village does not support the long-term projections. (See Aqueduct Connection
Project Business Plan Supplement II, dated Jan. 31, 2014) In response, the Village advised EFC
about the proposed Annexation, and stated that if indeed annexed into the Village, that
opportunity [to rezone or develop the subject properties] exists and would reasonably
accommodate the anticipated growth described in the Business Plan. (Id. (emphasis added).)
459.
In the same paragraph, the Village noted the maximum allowable
development under existing Town Zoning, and added that [t]his does not account, however, for
potential rezoning for increased densities. (Id.)
460.
As such, not only did the Village make clear to EFC that its business
model for the bonding of the aqueduct depended upon increasing the allowable density of the
Annexation Area, but it also unambiguously signaled that this increase in density would be
sufficient to accommodate the full development projected in the Budget Analysis -- 8,550 new
461.
The Villages representations to EFC obviously conflict with the
maxim that municipalities are not permitted to use annexation to evade current zoning
constraints. See, e.g., Bd. of Trustees of Spring Valley, 694 N.Y.S.2d at 714.
462.
The DGEIS recognized that the Village harbors the improper intent,
if either of the Proposed Annexations were approved, of changing the zoning in the land at issue
to substantially increase density. (See DGEIS at 3.1-16 (With annexation, the DGEIS assumes
81
the parcels proposed to be annexed to the Village of Kiryas Joel will be developed pursuant to
the Village zoning to accommodate a greater portion of the projected growth demands of the
community to the year 2025.).)
463.
The DGEIS concedes that the Village has no effective zoning
464.
The very first page of the DGEIS states that [t]here is no maximum
regulations.
density (units per acre) provision in the [Village] code. (DGEIS at 1-1.)
465.
This means that development can take place in the Village virtually
without limitation.
466.
Moreover, the Village has no legitimate planning process to
implement reasonable density restrictions, even if they existed.

467.
The Villages lack of any density regulation, when understood in
conjunction with the Villages serial disregard for land use laws and SEQRA, enables
development without any regard for its impact on the public health, safety, or general welfare.
Annexation lawfully cannot be used to avoid the Towns lawfully enacted zoning laws,
particularly where, as here, it is intended to allow unfettered development, without mitigation.
468.
The Town Board in its Annexation Resolution brazenly recognizes
that zoning restriction avoidance might have been a motivating factor in petitioning for
annexation. (Town Boards Annexation Resolution at 15.)
469.
The Town Board in its Annexation Resolution, however, irrationally
concluded that the fact that avoiding zoning restriction might have been a motivating factor in
petitioning for annexation, [this] does not prohibit approval of the annexation. (Town Boards
Annexation Resolution at 15.)
82
470.
The caselaw disallowing annexation petitions that are intended to
escape existing zoning legislation allows for no exceptions. See Bd. of Trustees of Spring
Valley, 694 N.Y.S.2d at 714; Bd. of Trustees, Vill. of Pomona, 567 N.Y.S.2d at 793; Vill. of
Skaneateles, 496 N.Y.S.2d at 186.
471.
The Town Boards claim that [t]he primary purpose of the
annexation, as represented by the petitioners, is to gain access to improved local government

services is pretextual and otherwise arbitrary and capricious.
The goal of the Proposed
Annexations
472.
The Annexation Petitions intent to avoid the Towns current zoning
requirements is not in the overall public interest.

473.
Because the Petitions are improperly intended to escape the effect of
the Towns duly adopted zoning legislation, the Petitions fail to comply with Article 17 of the
General Municipal Law. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 705(1)(d).
AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Article 78 Improper Creation of Baroque Boundaries)
474.
475.
The 507 Petition would improperly result in a highly irregular,
jagged border between the Town and the Village.

476.
New York Courts have repeatedly condemned such baroque
annexations which result in irregular and jagged indentations of the boundaries between the
municipalities. See, e.g., Common Council of Middletown v. Town Bd. of Wallkill, 143
A.D.2d 215, 532 N.Y.S.2d 17, 19 (2d Dept. 1988) (multiple citations omitted).
83
477.
As the DGEIS recognizes, however, annexation would result in a
number of parcels remaining in the Town of Monroe but surrounded by annexed land. (DGEIS
at 3.1-17.)
478.
In addition to improperly creating baroque boundaries, the
Annexation would significantly harm the unity of community of the Town residents left behind
in this isolated island.
479.
For this reason alone, the 507 Petitions form and content fails to
comply with Article 17 of the General Municipal Law. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 705(1)(d).
480.
The Petitions are also not in the overall public interest for this
reason.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Article 78 Improper Form and Content of Petitions
Violation of Town Ethics Code)
481.
482.
Article 17 of the General Municipal Law must also be construed in a
manner that would avoid objectionable consequences, such as mischievous or disastrous

consequences. See, e.g., N.Y. Stat. 148.
483.
Inasmuch as approving the Petitions caused Town Board Members
to violate the Town Codes Standard of Ethics, they must be dismissed by virtue of such failure
to comply with Article 17 of the General Municipal Law. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 705(1)(d).
484.
The Town Codes Standard of Ethics establishes that no Town
Boardmember or Town employee of the Town or of any service or other organization chartered
by or directly or indirectly sponsored or supported by the Town can [d]iscriminate or cause
84
voluntary segregation, directly or indirectly, based upon creed, color, national origin, sex, sexual
preference or disability. (Monroe Town Code 4-4(J)(1).)
485.
As such, any action by any Town Board Member(s) that promotes
the voluntary segregation of members of a particular religious group would, accordingly,

appear to violate the Towns Code of Ethics and would expose such Member(s) to the full range
of Disciplinary Action contemplated by the Town Code. (See Monroe Town Code 4-9(B)
(Any Town officer, Town Boardmember, Town consultant or Town employee who engages in
any action that violates any provision of this code may be warned or reprimanded or suspended
or removed from office or employment by the Town Board, pursuant to the provisions of this
code, applicable law or by the person or body authorized by law to impose such sanctions.).)
486.
As the United States Supreme Court has held, [i]t is undisputed
that those who [initially] negotiated the Village [of Kiryas Joels] boundaries when applying the
general village incorporation statute drew them so as to exclude all but Satmars. Kiryas Joel,
114 S. Ct. at 2489.
487.
The Monroe Town Code specifically establishes that causing
voluntary segregation is not in the public interest.

488.
The legislative intent to avoid voluntary segregation is so strong that
the Town Code establishes that it is an ethical violation for any Town Board Member(s) to act in
any way that causes voluntary segregation.
489.
Thus, the Town Code clearly establishes that causing voluntary
segregation, such as is the specific intent of the Petitions, is not in the overall public interest.
490.
The Petitions form and content violate the General Municipal Law
because they would violate the Town Code and otherwise cause objectionable results.
85
491.
As such, the Petitions fail to comply with Article 17 of the General
Municipal Law. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 705(1)(d).

492.
For the same reason, the Petitions are not in the public interest.
AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Article 78 Insufficiency of 507 Petition)
493.
494.
The 507 Petition contains insufficient signatures.
495.
The 507 Petition lacks a clear description of the territory proposed
for Annexation.
496.
As such, the 507 Petition must be dismissed by virtue of such failure
497.
The Town Board irrationally and illegally processed the 507
498.
The Village Board irrationally and illegally processed the 507
Petition.
Petition.
AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Article 78 Insufficiency of 164 Petition)
499.
500.
The 164 Petition contains insufficient signatures.
501.
The 164 Petition lacks a clear description of the territory proposed
for Annexation.
86
502.
As such, the 164 Petition must be dismissed by virtue of such failure
503.
The Town Board irrationally and illegally processed the 164
504.
The Village Board irrationally and illegally processed the 164
Petition.
Petition.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Article 78 164 Petition Violates
Prior Pending Jurisdiction Rule)
505.
506.
The interjection of the 164 Petition appears to violate the so-called
prior jurisdiction rule, which holds that once the municipal annexation process has commenced
by the filing of a petition for annexation, the affected municipalities shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over any annexation of the territory at issue until the annexation process is finally
concluded.
507.
The Prior Jurisdiction Rule establishes that where there in a prior
proceeding concerning certain territory pending, jurisdiction to consider and determine other
proceedings concerning the same territory is excluded. In re Commandeer Realty Assocs., Inc,
et al v. Allegro, et al, Index No. 923/2015, slip op. at 16 (Sup. Ct. Orange Co. Aug. 18, 2015)
(Decision, Order & Judgment) (Connolly, J.) ([T]he first of two or more annexation
proceedings prevails over those subsequently commenced relating to the same territory),
quoting 2 McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations 7:39.1 (3d ed. 2015).
87
508.
Under this Rule, once the 507 Petition was initiated, no other
Annexation Petition concerning the same territory could be initiated until the 507 Petition
process was concluded.
509.
Accordingly, the Town Board and the Village Board lacked
jurisdiction to consider the 164 Petition because the 507 Petition was still pending.
510.
The Town Board and the Village Boards processing of the 164
Petition was ultra vires.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs respectfully demand Judgment and an
Order, as follows:
Annulling and vacating the Town Boards SEQRA Findings;
Annulling and vacating the Town Boards Annexation Resolution;
Annulling and vacating the Village Boards 164 Resolution;
Annulling and vacating the Village Boards 507 Resolution;
Annulling and vacating the Village Boards SEQRA Findings;
Annulling and vacating the Village Boards Annexation Findings;
Annulling and vacating the DEC Commissioners selection of the Village

Board as the Lead Agency for the subject SEQRA review;
by the Court; and
Awarding Petitioners/Plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this action;

Awarding Petitioners/Plaintiffs attorneys fees in a sum to be determined
88

Granting Petitioners/Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court
deems just and proper.
Dated: October 5, 2015
White Plains, New York
ZARIN & STEINMETZ
By:
89
_____________________
Daniel M. Richmond, Esq.
Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs
Preserve Hudson Valley, John Allegro
and Louis Cerqua
81 Main Street, Suite 415
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 682-7800

PRESERVE HUDSON VALLEY Suit - KJ Annexation

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PRESERVE HUDSON VALLEY Suit - KJ Annexation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

ROSENBERG FAM, LLC, DEBORAH ROSENBERG,

ALLEGRO (Allegro), EMILY CONVERS, (Convers), and Louis Cerqua (Cerqua,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs bring this proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the

the Town Board (Town Board) of the Town of Monroes (Town)

the Town Boards Decision, Resolution, Order: 507.4 Acre and

the Village of Kiryas Joel (Village) Board of Trustees (Village

the Village Boards Resolution, Findings and Order Approving the

the Village Boards SEQRA Statement of Findings, adopted

the Village Boards Findings with Respect to Compliance of the 507-

the Commissioner (the Commissioner) of the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservations (DEC) determination to designate the Village

be for declaratory relief.

the Village that are at issue here:

a petition, submitted on or about December 27, 2013, to the Town Council

a petition, submitted on or about August 20, 2014, to the Town Council

The Town Boards and the Village Boards respective determinations on

Arbitrary Designation of Village Board As Lead Agency: In

Arbitrary and Capricious SEQRA Determination By Town

Arbitrary and Capricious SEQRA Determination By Village

Petitioners/Plaintiffs already have a pending challenge to the DEC Commissioners designation

Improper Use of Annexation to Up-Zone: The Courts uniformly

Improper Creation of Baroque Boundaries: New York

Violation of Town Ethics Code: The Town Council Members

Insufficient Signatures and Territorial Description: The form

Violation of Prior Jurisdiction Rule: The Prior Jurisdiction Rule

Accordingly, the subject determinations should be reversed,

vacated and nullified.

Petitioner/Plaintiff Preserve Hudson Valley, Inc. (Preserve Hudson

Preserve Hudson Valleys aims are: (i) to preserve and protect

This proceeding is germane to Preserve Hudson Valleys purpose.

Multiple members of Preserve Hudson Valley have individual

standing to challenge the subject actions, including Petitioner/Plaintiff John Allegro.

The participation of none of Preserve Hudson Valleys members is

necessary to the relief requested herein.

Petitioner/Plaintiff John Allegro (Allegro) resides at 288 Seven

Springs Mountain Road in the Town of Monroe, New York.

that is the subject of the 507 Petition.

Mr. Allegro would be directly and uniquely impacted by the

Mr. Allegro would, for example, be uniquely adversely impacted by

Mr. Allegro has a daughter who attends the MWCSD public

Petitioner/Plaintiff Emily Convers (Convers) resides at 22 Sunset

Heights, in the Town of Monroe, New York.

Ms. Convers is in Orange County Sewer District #1, which would

Petitioner/Plaintiff Louis M. Cerqua (Cerqua) resides at 300

Forest Road in the Town of Woodbury, New York.

Mr. Cerqua resides adjacent to the territory that is the subject of

both the 164 and the 507 Petition.

Mr. Cerqua would, for example, be uniquely adversely impacted by

Respondent/Defendant the Town Board of the Town of Monroe is

Respondent/Defendant Harley Doles is the Supervisor of the Town

Supervisor Doles acts as a member of the Town Board, and voted

on the subject Town Board determinations.

Respondent/Defendant the Village of Kiryas Joel (the Village)

Respondent/Defendant Marc Gerstman, is the Acting Commissioner

(Commissioner Gerstman) of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Commissioner Gerstman is the successor to DEC Commissioner

Commissioner Martens rendered the determination designating the

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is

Upon information and belief, Emanuel Leonorovitz and Basya

Upon information and belief, Mende Breuer, is listed as a signator

Upon information and belief, Ella Breuer, is listed as a signator of

Upon information and belief, Cong Beth Aryeh, by Esther Tamb, is

Upon information and belief, Esther Stessel, is listed as a signator of