Opinion
1357/2014
06-25-2015
In the Matter of the Application of Village of Sloatsburg, New York, Petitioner, for a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules v. Town of Ramapo Planning Board, Woodmont Properties, LLC, Ramapo Land Co., Inc., Respondents. and THE COUNTY OF ROCKLAND and EDWIN J. DAY, as County Executive of the County of Rockland, Proposed Intervenor-Petitioners
Thomas E. Humbach, Esq.County Attorney, County of Rockland Balsamo, Byrne Cipriani & Ellsworth, Attorney, Village of Sloatsburg Michael L. Klein, Esq., Town Attorney, Town of Ramapo Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C.. Attorneys for Woodmont Properties LLC and Ramapo Land Company, Inc.
Thomas E. Humbach, Esq.County Attorney, County of Rockland
Balsamo, Byrne Cipriani & Ellsworth, Attorney, Village of Sloatsburg
Michael L. Klein, Esq., Town Attorney, Town of Ramapo
Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C.. Attorneys for Woodmont Properties LLC and Ramapo Land Company, Inc.
Robert M. Berliner, J.
The following papers, numbered 1 to 11, were read on the motion submitted by the Proposed Intervenor-Petitioners County of Rockland and Edwin J. Day, as County Executive of the County of Rockland (hereinafter collectively the "Movants") seeking an order permitting them to intervene as additional Petitioners in this special proceeding:
Order to Show Cause/Affirmation in Support/Exhibits(A-D)/Memorandum of Law
In Support.........................................................................................................................1-3
Affirmation in Opposition(Gittelman)/Exhibits(A-C).........................................................4
Affirmation in Support(Ellsworth)/Exhibits(A-D)..............................................................5
Affirmation in Reply(Humbach)/Memorandum of Law..................................................6-7
Affirmation in Opposition(Sarajian)/Memorandum of Law............................................8-9
Affirmation in Reply(Humbach dated January 22, 2015)/Memorandum of Law........10-11
Upon the foregoing papers, it is ORDERED that Movants' motion is disposed of as follows:
Petitioner commenced the instant Article 78 proceeding, seeking to set aside certain resolutions of Respondent Town of Ramapo Planning Board. Movants, through their Planning Department, performed certain mandated reviews pursuant to General Municipal Law Article 12-B regarding the project that is the subject of the resolutions in question. As a result of these reviews, Movants proposed 29 proposed modifications to the project. It is alleged that the Ramapo Planning Board approved the project without incorporating or sufficiently addressing these identified concerns and proposed modifications. Thus, they seek to intervene in this action and file their own petition.
Their memorandum of law sets forth two legal points in support of their position: Movants have a substantial interest in the outcome of this litigation and the intervention will not substantially cause prejudice or delay to Respondents. Movants claim "a substantial interest in the outcome of this litigation based upon their responsibility to oversee areas of county wide concern, including community character, traffic, water quantity and quality, drainage, stormwater runoff and sanitary sewer service and fire and emergency services" and the intervention will not substantially cause prejudice or delay to Respondents. These grounds echo those previously proffered in connection with Movant's earlier application seeking intervention, which the Court denied based upon their failure to annex a proposed pleading. The Court notes that, unlike its earlier application, Respondents have now interposed responsive pleadings and thus permitting Movants to intervene would give rise to additional delays in the adjudication of this proceeding and potential prejudice.
The Village of Sloatsburg supports Movants' proposed intervention. It alleges that the Village and Movants share concerns surrounding fire safety at the project site and their claims arise from the same Planning Board determinations. In addition, the Village contends that the question of Movants' capacity to maintain a proceeding is premature absent the Court's permission to intervene and disputes any allegation that Movants are necessary parties.
The Town of Ramapo Planning Board opposes the application, claiming that Movants lack the capacity to intervene/maintain a suit since the proposed intervention was not authorized by resolution by the County legislature and is outside the power of the County Executive, lack standing to intervene and that intervention would violate the applicable statute of limitations.
Respondents Woodmont Properties LLC and Ramapo Land Company, Inc. (hereinafter collectively "Woodmont") also oppose Movant's application on procedural and other grounds. Woodmont alleges that Movant's application seeks leave to renew and/or reargue the Court's December 1, 2014 determination denying its previous motion to intervene without conforming to the statutory mandates of CPLR §2221. Woodmont also avers that Movants' claims are barred by the statute of limitations, do not relate back to the claims asserted in the Petition, Movants lack the capacity and standing to intervene and have interests that are adequately represented by those asserted by the Petitioner herein, the Village of Sloatsburg.
" CPLR 7802(d), which authorizes the court to allow interested persons' to intervene, grants the court broader power to allow intervention in an article 78 proceeding than is provided pursuant to either CPLR 1012 or 1013 in an action' (Matter of Elinor Homes Co. v. St. Lawrence, 113 AD2d 25, 28-29, 494 N.Y.S.2d 889). As a general matter, Intervention should be permitted where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings' (County of Westchester v. Department of Health of State of NY, 229 AD2d 460, 461, 645 N.Y.S.2d 534). Bernstein v Feiner, 43 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2d Dept 2007].
In what is now well-settled binding precedent, the Court of Appeals held:
"Whether a person seeking relief is a proper party to request an adjudication is an aspect of justiciability which, when challenged, must be considered at the outset of any litigation (Matter of Dairylea Coop. v. Walkley, 38 NY2d 6, 9, 377 N.Y.S.2d 451, 339 N.E.2d 865). Standing is a threshold determination, resting in part on policy considerations, that a person should be allowed access to the courts to adjudicate the merits of a particular dispute that satisfies the other justiciability criteria (see, Comment, Standing of Third Parties to Challenge Administrative Agency Actions, 76 Cal.L.Rev. 1061, 1067-1068 [1988]; see also, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2204, 45 L.Ed.2d 343). That an issue may be one of vital public concern' does not entitle a party to standing. Courts surely do provide a forum for airing issues of vital public concern, but so do public hearings and publicly elected legislatures, both of which have functioned here. By contrast to those forums, a litigant must establish its standing in order to seek judicial review". Socy. of Plastics Indus., Inc. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 769 [1991]
In applying these sound legal principles to the instant application seeking leave to intervene, the Court finds that Movants lack the requisite standing to present the claims contained in their proposed pleading for adjudication before this tribunal. Movants' reliance upon its Planning Board's stated purpose of bringing "pertinent inter-community and county-wide planning, zoning, site plan and subdivision considerations to the attention of neighboring municipalities and agencies having jurisdiction" is insufficient to confer standing in this proceeding. General Municipal Law § 239-l.
Based upon the foregoing, Movants' application seeking permission to intervene in this proceeding is denied in its entirety. In light of the foregoing, the Court need not address the balance of the arguments advanced by the parties.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated:New City, New YorkE N T E R
June 25, 2015
__________________________
HON. ROBERT M. BERLINER, J.S.C.