Opinion
04870/2004.
Decided December 13, 2004.
Thacher Proffitt Wood LLP, White Plains, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff Pocantico Home Land Company, LLC.
Donald S. Snider, Esq., White Plains, New York, Attorney for Individual Plaintiffs.
Morrison Cohen Singer Weinstein, LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Nobile, Magarian DiSalvo, LLP, Bronxville, New York, Attorneys for Intervening Plaintiff, Bruce C. Edelstein.
Ingerman Smith LLP, Northport, New York, Attorneys for Pocantico Hills Central School District and Board of Education of Pocantico Hills Central School District.
Whiteman, Osterman Hanna, LLP, Albany, New York, Attorneys for Union Free School District of the Tarrytowns and Board of Education of Union Free School District of the Tarrytowns.
INTRODUCTION
This Court is called upon to resolve a dispute involving the education of children living in newly constructed homes in the subdivision known as The Legends at Pocantico Hills and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village Tax Map") as Section 115.12, Block 2, Lots 35.1, 35.2, 35.3, 35.4, 35.5, 35.6, 35.7, 35.8, 35.9, 35.10, 35.11, 35.12, and 35.14 ("The Legends at Pocantico Hills"). The issue is whether the subdivision is located in the Pocantico Hills Central Hills School District (the "Pocantico District") or the Union Free School District of the Tarrytowns (the "Tarrytown District"). On one side of the dispute is the owner/developer of the property in question, the individual owners of homes in the affected area and contract vendees who either purchased the property in question (or lived there) relying upon numerous public documents and filed records as well as representations and statements made to them to the effect that their present homes and homes to be lied within the Pocantico District. On the other side are the Tarrytown District, the Board of Education of the Tarrytown District (the "Tarrytown Board"); the Tarrytown District and the Tarrytown Board are collectively referred to herein as "Tarrytown"), the Pocantico District and the Board of Education of the Pocantico District (the "Pocantico Board"; the Pocantico District and the Pocantico Board are collectively referred to herein as "Pocantico"), who, after decades of inaction, acquiescence, a subdivision application, and a draft environmental impact statement arose from its somnolent state to argue that the property in question was within the Tarrytown District, not the Pocantico District.
As is shown below, the representatives of the school districts throughout the decades always believed the property to be within the Pocantico District. Pocantico has received the school tax monies for this property since such time and as late as 2003 made affirmative statements to the owners of the property and prospective purchasers that they were within the Pocantico District. Tarrytown did not object throughout these years.
Both Tarrytown and Pocantico argue that despite these decades of history, and letters and statements made with full knowledge that people would rely upon the same to make decisions as fundamental as those involving their children's education, that their actions and their conscious inaction were both meaningless and inconsequential.
For the reasons set forth below this Court rejects each and every argument made by Pocantico and Tarrytown and finds that their conduct, and their positions advanced to be repugnant and without conscience, and entirely loath to this Court's belief of manifest justice. Accordingly, this Court, invoking its powers of equity, cannot countenance this manifest injustice.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff Pocantico Home and Land Company, LLC ("Pocantico Home") is the owner of certain lots located in The Legends at Pocantico Hills. Plaintiffs Craig Benson, Jessica Benson, George Bernacchia, Robin Bernacchia, Francis D. Cerrito, Leeann Cerrito, Bock Soo Lee, Ae Sook Lee, Sarada Neppala, Subbarayudu Neppala, Angela Meli Matthew Meli and Cindy Kief (collectively, the "Individual Plaintiffs") and Intervening Plaintiffs Jorge Beristain ("Beristain") and Lena Andreou ("Andreou") are contract vendees for or owners of individual lots in The Legends at Pocantico Hills. Intervening Plaintiff Bruce C. Edelstein ("Edelstein") (Pocantico Home, the Individual Plaintiffs Beristain, Andreou and Edelstein are collectively referred to herein as the "Plaintiffs") is the owner of the property known and designated on the Village Tax Map as Section 115.12, Block 2, Lot 42 (the "Edelstein Property") (The Legends at Pocantico Hills and the Edelstein Property are collectively referred to herein as the "Property").
The Property has been assessed to the Pocantico District since at least 1966, as evidenced by the official tax records of the Town of Mount Pleasant consisting of School Tax Rolls, the Village Tax Map and prior Town of Mount Pleasant tax assessment maps. As a result, Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have continuously paid taxes to the Town of Mount Pleasant for the benefit of the Pocantico District and have been entitled to send their children to the Pocantico District. In fact, Edelstein's child attended the Pocantico District during the 2002-2003 school year and the two children attended the Pocantico District during the 2003-2004 school year with the full knowledge and consent of the Pocantico District and the Tarrytown District. In addition, Tarrytown remitted the tax revenue for the Edelstein Property to Pocantico.
Although the Property has been consistently assessed to the Pocantico District since at least 1966, Tarrytown did not make any challenge to such assessment until late 2003 when Pocantico Home began building million dollar plus homes for the Individual Plaintiffs at The Legends at Pocantico Hills. Only then did Tarrytown take the position that it was entitled to the tax revenue from The Legends at Pocantico Hills.
Tarrytown claims that the Property is located in the Tarrytown District because the end result of a series of consents in the early 1950s between the Pocantico Board and the Tarrytown Board and the subsequent orders that were executed by the District Superintendent of the Second Supervisory District of Westchester County (the "District Superintendent") altered the school district boundary line between the Pocantico District and the Tarrytown District and transferred the Property and other property located in the Pocantico District (collectively, the "Pocantico Land") to the Tarrytown District. Although the consents and orders do exist, all the evidence is clear that such alteration and transfer, however, was for the sole purpose of enabling the Tarrytown Board to acquire such property for the construction of its new high school. The property subject to the 1950s consents and orders that was not to be used for the new high school was to always remain in the Pocantico District (the "Unused Pocantico Land"). The Unused Pocantico Land includes the Property.
Pocantico, on the other hand, has treated the Property as within its district by (a) receiving the school taxes for the Property; (b) educating the children residing on the Edelstein Property; (c) acknowledging on repeated occasions that The Legends at Pocantico Hills is located in its district during public proceedings; and (d) making affirmative representations to Pocantico Home, Pocantico Home's predecessor in title and several of the Individual Plaintiffs that The Legends at Pocantico Hills is located in its district.
Pocantico, through its Principal/Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent, continuously represented to innocent property buyers that the Property was in its district and exercised jurisdiction over the Property. Despite this, Pocantico, for some unknown reason, is now seeking to disclaim that the Property is located in its district. While the motivation of Pocantico is not an issue before this Court, it perplexes the Court that Pocantico has taken such a position, especially since Pocantico would lose tax revenue if the Property is no longer in its district.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs seek recovery based upon causes of action sounding in breach of contract, specific performance and declaratory judgment. In their first cause of action for breach of contract and specific performance, Plaintiffs allege that (a) Defendants are in continuous breach of their agreement (the "Agreement") to return the Unused Pocantico Land to the Pocantico District; and (b) the Court should order specific performance of the Agreement between the parties in the early 1950s to return the Unused Pocantico Land to the Pocantico District.
Plaintiffs' second cause of action seeks a declaration as to what school district the Property should be properly located in and what school Plaintiffs' children should properly attend. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that (a) the Property should be located within the Pocantico District and, therefore, their children are entitled to attend the Pocantico District and the Tarrytown District is not entitled to school taxes from the Property; and (b) Defendants have breached and failed to perform their obligations under the Agreement.
Pocantico Home and the Individual Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to maintain and preserve the status quo during the pendency of this action. After a hearing on April 15, 2004, the Court denied Pocantico Home's and the Individual Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order on the basis, in part, that there was not a current emergency requiring the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order. Instead, the Court directed that the issue of a preliminary injunction should be resolved before the school year beginning in September 2004 to provide for the education of the children of the Individual Plaintiffs. The Court scheduled the Preliminary Injunction Hearing for May 27, 2004 (the "Preliminary Injunction Hearing").
Between April 15, 2004 and May 27, 2004, the date of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, a series of motions were made by the parties. Edelstein moved to intervene. Pocantico moved to dismiss the Verified Complaint on various grounds. Pocantico Home and the Individual Plaintiffs sought to convert Pocantico's Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment by order to show cause. Pocantico Home and the Individual Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against Tarrytown. Tarrytown cross-moved for summary judgment.
On May 27, 2004, at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, the Court heard oral argument on all the issues raised by the foregoing motions (except for Edelstein's motion to intervene which the Court had previously granted) and reserved decision on all motions. The Court then proceeded to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. After the parties rested, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.
In the Court's Decision and Order dated July 15, 2004 (the "Court's July Decision"), the Court converted Pocantico's Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment and gave the parties until July 30, 2004 to submit supplemental factual and legal papers. By Stipulation dated August 27, 2004 between the parties and so ordered by the Court (the "Stipulation"), Tarrytown and Pocantico were given time to submit additional papers and the Plaintiffs were given time to respond to such papers. Accordingly, the motions now before this Court are the Motions for Summary Judgment of Pocantico Home and the Individual Plaintiffs, Pocantico and Tarrytown.
The Stipulation rendered Tarrytown's and Pocantico's Motions for Leave to Regargue and to Strike moot.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
CPLR 3212(b) allows the Court to grant summary judgment "if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party." CPLR 3212(b). See also Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 (1980); Bohm v. Nystrum Constr., 208 AD2d 668, 617 NYS2d 520 (2nd Dep't 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact. Herrin v. Airborne Freight Corp., 301 AD2d 500, 753 NYS2d 140 (2nd Dep't 2003); Ptasznik v. Schultz, 223 AD2d 695, 637 NYS2d 469 (2nd Dep't 1996).
It is well established that once the moving party has made a prima facie showing of its right to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the opposing party to "demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action or tender an acceptable excuse for his failure to do so." Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 560, 472 NYS2d at 596; Friedman v. Pesach, 160 AD2d 460, 554 NYS2d 131 (1st Dep't 1990); Bank Leumi Trust Co. of New York v. Rattet Liebman, 182 AD2d 541, 582 NYS2d 707 (1st Dep't 1992).
If the Court determines that a nonmoving party is entitled to summary judgment, CPLR 3212(b) allows the Court to grant summary judgment to such nonmoving party without the necessity of a cross-motion. CPLR 3212(b). The Court may search the record to award summary judgment to such nonmoving party. Evangelista v. Ward, 308 AD2d 504, 764 NYS2d 705 (2nd Dep't 2003); Goldstein v. County of Suffolk, 300 AD2d 441, 751 NYS2d 549 (2nd Dep't 2002); Campos v. New York City Housing Authority, 295 AD2d 386, 743 NYS2d 536 (2nd Dep't 2002).
Summary judgment is entirely appropriate in this case. Pocantico Home, the Individual Plaintiffs and Tarrytown moved for summary judgment. Pocantico's Motion to Dismiss was converted into a Motion for Summary Judgment. In a conference with the Court on September 24, 2004, counsel for the parties indicated that there was no factual issue that would preclude the granting of summary judgment. In a subsequent conference with the Court on November 1, 2004, counsel for the parties could not identify any need for a trial of this action. Summary judgment is, therefore, appropriate and required in this case. Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 560, 472 NYS2d at 596.
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
It is patently evident that this Court must invoke its powers of equity to prevent a manifest injustice and apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel precluding the Defendants from completing the course on which they have embarked. Bainbridge-Wythe Partnership, Inc. v. Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency, 294 AD2d 806, 742 NYS2d 176 (4th Dep't 2002); Board of Education v. Sobol, 164 Misc2d 411, 624 NYS2d 762 (Sup.Ct. Albany Co. 1995), aff'd 226 AD2d 945, 641 NYS2d 168 (3rd Dep't 1996); Incorporated Village of Freeport v. Sanders, 121 AD2d 430, 503 NYS2d 129 (2nd Dep't 1986).
The applicability of the doctrine is well established in situations "where, by custom, usage and the passage of time, disputed territory has been assumed by all interested persons to be beyond the boundaries of one entity of local government and within those of another, and where property owners or adjacent units of local government have relied to their detriment upon the inaction and passivity of a municipal corporation to which knowledge of the original boundaries at the time of incorporation may be imputed." La Porto v. Village of Philmont, 39 NY2d 7, 10-11, 382 NYS2d 703, 705 (1976).
In La Porto, property owners filed an action to prevent the collection of taxes on property that had been added to the tax roll in 1973 after not being on the tax roll since 1911. The Court of Appeals determined that the village was estopped from changing tax lines because it would be inequitable to allow the village to maintain a position that the true boundaries of the property were established by an 1892 description when such position was inconsistent with its "posture of silence and inaction during the past 80 years upon which appellants and [the other municipality] have relief." Id. at 12, 382 NYS2d at 706. The Court of Appeals deemed such "continuing course of conduct" to have been "misleading and deceptive." Id.
Similarly, Sobol involved a school district boundary line dispute. The Supreme Court and the Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner of Education's decision that the property at issue was within the boundaries of the school district (the Ogdensburg Enlarged City School District) that it had been considered a part of since 1901. In making their determination, the courts considered, among other things, that the property had been on the Ogdensburg Enlarged City School District's tax-exempt rolls since 1927 and had provided tuition-free educational services to the residents of the property at issue without objection from the other school district.
A decision to purchase real property frequently involves the parents' assessment of the value of the education their children would receive in the particular school district that they would be attending. This decision does not disparage any other district. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated through their affidavits and unrebuked testimony in open court that their primary consideration in the purchase of their homes in The Legends at Pocantico Hills was its location within the Pocantico District.
The Plaintiffs took the commonplace steps that a purchaser of property would take to ascertain the school district in which The Legends at Pocantico Hills was located. Indeed, some even took the extra steps of contacting Pocantico directly to confirm that the Property was located within the Pocantico District. During his deposition, Peter Lisi, the former Principal/Superintendent of the Pocantico District, acknowledged that he had determined that The Legends at Pocantico Hills was located within the Pocantico District and that he was contacted by individual homeowners who were interested in buying property at The Legends at Pocantico Hills. He testified he did not let any of those homeowners know there was any question about whether or not The Legends at Pocantico Hills was located within the Pocantico District because he did not know there was an issue about it. He advised them all it was within the Potantico District.
Also, Pocantico Home, before it purchased The Legends at Pocantico Hills, conducted a complete and thorough due diligence which confirmed that The Legends at Pocantico Hills was located in the Pocantico District, by ordering a title report which involved a search of the tax records of the property, and further by its own examination of the tax maps and the school tax assessment rolls of the Town of Mount Pleasant as well as contacting Pocantico's Principal/Superintendent. From all of the foregoing, it was confirmed that The Legends at Pocantico Hills was in the Pocantico District. Indeed, Pocantico Home also obtained an appraisal from KTR Newmark Real Estate Services LLC, which not only confirmed that The Legends at Pocantico Hills was located within the Pocantico District but stated that The Legends at Pocantico Hills would benefit from such location, as it was also a factor in the determination of the value of The Legends at Pocantico Hills.
The tax records presented by the Plaintiffs include (1) tax maps from the Town of Mount Pleasant from the 1950s or 1960s; (2) tax maps from the Village of Sleepy Hollow from 1997, 1999 and 2003; (3) school tax rolls from 1966 through the present; (4) tax bills from 1992 through 2003; and (5) Town of Mount Pleasant Tax Collection Sheets for 2003. These tax records clearly indicate the Property was located in the Pocantico District and Pocantico confirmed the same to those Plaintiffs who inquired. Plaintiffs justifiably relied to their detriment upon the public records, representations of Pocantico and the complete inaction of Tarrytown when they made their decision to purchase the Property.
Defendants' actions and inactions equitably estop them from denying that the Property is located within the Pocantico District. La Porto, 39 NY2d at 11, 382 NYS2d at 705. Such actions and inactions which are not controverted include, by way of example:
(1) The minutes of the Town Board of the Town of Mount Pleasant (the "Town Board") clearly reveal that in 1959, the Town of Mount Pleasant Board of Assessors (the "Board of Assessors") sought to correct the assessment rolls for the years 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958 when it was brought to the attention of the Board of Assessors that a portion of the Unused Pocantico Land had been erroneously assessed to the Tarrytown District instead of the Pocantico District. The minutes of the Town Board and the Pocantico Board also clearly reveal that Pocantico and Tarrytown were aware of the Board of Assessors' efforts and even participated in such efforts;
(2) Tarrytown and Pocantico have failed to challenge the assessment of the Property to the Pocantico District from at least 1966 to late 2003 and, despite numerous opportunities, have completely failed to produce any evidence to the contrary;
(3) In 1998, the former Principal/Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent of the Pocantico District met with Bruce Lozito, a representative of Pocantico Home's predecessor in title, and confirmed that The Legends at Pocantico Hills was located within the Pocantico District. During his deposition, Mr. Lisi, the former Principal/Superintendent of the Pocantico District, testified on this issue as follows:
Question: Can you tell us as best you can recall what Mr. Lozito said to you in that meeting and what you said to him in exact words if you recall them or in substance if you don't?
Answer: Yeah. I don't remember exact words, but I believe the first issue was he wanted to be assured is this property within Pocantico Hills School. It was normal and every day for us to answer that question. We answered the question by going to the tax map. His property or the property he was purchasing or thinking of purchasing or had already purchased was, in fact, listed as being taxed under Pocantico Hills School. We assured him that to us that meant the property was in our district.
Deposition Transcript of Peter Lisi dated August 11, 2004, p. 16. Mr. Lozito also confirmed the substance of the foregoing meeting by testimony in open court and his deposition and by affidavit;
(4) In 2000, Pocantico acknowledged that The Legends at Pocantico Hills was located within the Pocantico District during the subdivision approval process in which it was noticed. Specifically, Mr. Lisi wrote a letter dated November 29, 2000 to the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow stating that The Legends at Pocantico Hills falls in the Pocantico District's boundaries and setting forth the Pocantico District's concerns relating to the development of The Legends at Pocantico Hills ( i.e., the potential number of students from the homes and their ability to serve them and transportation issues applicable to the prospective students);
(5)Tarrytown did not challenge the designation of the Pocantico District as the school district for The Legends at Pocantico Hills during the approximately four year subdivision approval process even though it received numerous notices, including one that listed the Pocantico District as an interested agency and contained an area map that depicted The Legends at Pocantico Hills being located within the Pocantico District;
(6)Pocantico confirmed to Pocantico Home and several Individual Plaintiffs that The Legends at Pocantico Hills was located within the Pocantico District. Mr. Lisi testified during his deposition that he confirmed the same to potential home buyers. Rodney Montag, a representative of Pocantico Home, testified during his deposition that Mr. Lisi confirmed the same to him prior to Pocantico Home's purchase of The Legends at Pocantico Hills;
(7) In 2003, Mr. and Mrs. Edelstein wanted their child to attend school in the Pocantico District. By letter dated June 27, 2003, Gloria Colucci, Assistant Superintendent of the Pocantico District, notified Andrew LaBella, Business Manager of the Tarrytown District, that Pocantico had researched the school district boundary line and determined that Mr. and Mrs. Edelstein were allowed to send their child to Pocantico because the school district boundary line bisected their property. Ms. Colucci provided a copy of Edelstein's letter indicating their choice of school, their 2002-03 school tax bills from the Town of Mount Pleasant and the Town of Greenburgh, a copy of Education Law 3203 and an invoice for the Tarrytown portion of the school taxes. Tarrytown not only did nothing to dispute Pocantico's determination but paid its portion of the school taxes from the Edelstein Property to Pocantico. Edelstein's child attended the Pocantico District during the 2002-2003 school year and two of their children attended the Pocantico District during the 2003-2004 school year;
(8)In 2003, Tarrytown prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and a Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding proposed alterations to its schools which considered future residential development projects in the Tarrytown District but did not include The Legends at Pocantico Hills.
The well-established doctrine of acquiescence is equally applicable to Tarrytown as a result of its continued inaction, passivity and allowance of assessment by the Pocantico District since at least 1966 until late 2003. La Porto, 39 NY2d at 11, 382 NYS2d at 705; Town of Riverhead v. Town of Brookhaven, 273 AD2d 459, 710 NYS2d 602 (2nd Dep't 2000); Guilderland Fire District v. Centi, 193 Misc2d 611, 749 NYS2d 696 (Sup.Ct. Albany Co. 2002); Sobol, 164 Misc2d at 413, 624 NYS2d at 764.
Tarrytown and Pocantico assert several affirmative defenses. However, these affirmative defenses have no merit and must be dismissed.
First, Tarrytown and Pocantico contend that this action should be dismissed because the Commissioner of Education has exclusive jurisdiction to make a boundary line determination in accordance with Education Law § 2215. Plaintiffs, however, have sought the equitable jurisdiction of the Court, which is beyond the authority of the Commissioner of Education.
Moreover, this action includes several causes of action, differing in nature than the issues pending before the Commissioner of Education. Accordingly, the doctrines of collateral estoppel and exhaustion of remedies are inapplicable in this action. Mazzocki v. State Farm Fire Casualty Corp., 1 AD3d 9, 766 NYS2d 719 (3rd Dep't 2003); Cady v. Clark, 176 AD2d 1055, 575 NYS2d 201 (3rd Dep't 1991); Watergate II Apartments v. Buffalo Sewer Authority, 46 NY2d 52, 412 NYS2d 821 (1978).
Second, Tarrytown and Pocantico also contend that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction bars this action. However, Plaintiffs' assertions and arguments, especially those invoking the equitable powers of this Court, are not those which are normally within the expertise and competence of the Commissioner of Education. Mandell v. Bd. of Educ. of the Syosset Cent. Sch. Dist., 243 AD2d 479, 662 NYS2d 598 (2nd Dep't 1997). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' causes of action are properly before this Court.
Third, Tarrytown and Pocantico argue that the notice of claim requirements of Education Law § 3813 have not been fulfilled. Notwithstanding, a notice of claim is not necessary in this case because it does not involve money damages. Ruocco v. Doyle, 38 AD2d 132, 327 NYS2d 933 (2nd Dep't 1972).
Insofar as a notice of claim would ordinarily have been required in this case, such a requirement has been fully satisfied because Plaintiffs sufficiently informed Defendants of their claims giving more than adequate time to investigate such claims. Board of Education of Westbury Union Free School District v. Ambach, 81 AD2d 691, 438 NYS2d 637 (3rd Dep't 1981). Defendants had knowledge about the extant school district boundary line dispute since late 2003 and actively investigated and participated in such dispute. In addition, Pocantico Home's attorney, prior to the commencement of this action, served a letter dated March 19, 2004 on Defendants' attorneys demanding the return of the Unused Pocantico Land to the Pocantico District. Defendants considered and refused that demand.
Plaintiffs argue that a contract exists between Tarrytown and Pocantico regarding the boundary line and that they are third party beneficiaries of the same. In light of this ruling, the Court need not reach the merits of such argument, nor the affirmative defenses relating thereto.
Fourth, Tarrytown and Pocantico contend that all necessary parties have not been joined because District Superintendent Ronald Smalls should have been joined. The Court's finds that District Superintendent Smalls need not be joined in this action to fulfill the purposes of compulsory joinder. See Buechel v. Bain, 275 AD2d 65, 713 NYS2d 332 (1st Dep't 2000), aff'd 97 NY2d 295, 740 NYS2d 252 (2001); Hitchcock v. Boyack, 256 AD2d 842, 681 NYS2d 659 (3rd Dep't 1998).
Fifth, Tarrytown and Pocantico further contend that any failure in performing due diligence, on the part of Plaintiffs, is not attributable to Tarrytown. Such argument is without merit since Plaintiffs undertook the usual and customary due diligence that any reasonable prudent property buyer would undertake to determine the school district in which the Property is located.
Sixth, Tarrytown submits that the Court of Appeals decision in Parkview Associates v. City of New York, 71 NY2d 274, 526 NYS2d 176 (1988) precludes this Court from rendering a decision in favor of the Plaintiffs despite the hardship it would create. However, that case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. Specifically, in Parkview, the contractor began an addition of multiple stories to a building on Park Avenue wherein prior to the commencement of the construction, permits were applied for and issued based upon a mistaken interpretation of a zoning map. Upon discovery, the permits where revoked and the builder was forced to tear down the partially completed addition.
Parkview was upheld based upon long standing zoning limits in that area, together with the opinion that a good faith effort by the builder in investigating the possibility of the addition, would have definitely uncovered the mistake in one map. The extant case is markedly different from Parkview. There are no environmental concerns present here. Allowing the Plaintiffs to utilize the Pocantico District will have an no environmental impact on the neighboring communities. Nor is there a compelling public concern or interest, which would clearly outweigh the needs of the Plaintiffs. Further, the Plaintiffs herein, contrary to the plaintiff in Parkview, did conduct a thorough and good faith based investigation as to the applicable school district. Such was not the case in Parkview as was clearly noted in the Court's decision.
Defendants' most recent argument is that the Individual Plaintiffs' contractual arrangements with Pocantico Home which either eliminate or minimize their monetary damage related to the purchase of the individual residences, and thereby have not suffered irreparable injury, have precluded the invocation of the equitable powers of this Court. Analysis of this argument reveals that it is fundamentally flawed for a plethora of reasons.
This argument ignores Pocantico Home and the damages it has suffered. Defendants also are improperly categorizing the damages suffered by the Individual Plaintiffs, Beristain and Andreou as limited to a horn book analysis of contract damages and attempts at mitigation. It does not address the fact that the Individual Plaintiffs Berestain and Andreou made a fundamental decision to uproot their respective families, change the schools their children were to attend only to be told it was not to be. This Court is entirely convinced that the true damages suffered are incapable of any form of accurate monetary assessment. See generally Republic Aviation Corporation v. Republic Lodge Number 1987, Int. Assoc. Of Machinists, 10 Misc2d 783, 169 NYS2d 651 (Sup.Ct. Queens Co. 1957.
In light of the decision of this Court, Tarrytown's application to vacate the preliminary injunction, dated November 19, 2004, is denied.
For all of the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ordered and adjudged as follows:
(1)It is hereby declared that the Property is and should be within the Pocantico District and, therefore, children who reside on the Property are entitled to attend the Pocantico District tuition free and the Tarrytown District is not entitled to taxes from the Property, except for the Edelstein Property in the event that Edelstein or future owners of the Edelstein Property elect to send their children to the Tarrytown District instead of the Pocantico District; AND
(2)The Tarrytown Board and the Pocantico Board are hereby directed to consent to the alteration of the school district boundary line between the Tarrytown District and the Pocantico District to return all Unused Pocantico Land, including the Property, to the Pocantico District and to effectuate such alteration in accordance with Education Law § 1507.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision, Order and Judgment of the Court.