Edgemont Denied Right To Petition for Incorporation

In a typical turn of events, the Town Supervisor was able to once again thwart the proponents of an Edgemont incorporation (EIC) by violating their rights to hold a referendum allowing them to essentially secede from the Town of Greenburgh and chart their own destiny out from under the monopolistic thumb of Mr Feiner. Sadly, the court condoned Mr Feiner’s desire to stop the EIC’s rights by agreeing with his convoluted assertion that the petition failed to include a description of the territory to be incorporated with common certainty. 

When the first court case came up in 2017, Mr Feiner routinely took advantage of his position to write numerous op-ed pieces and do interviews that bemoaned his eagerness to stop the incorporation. A proven liar (found guilty of lying in the Fortress Bible Church Discrimination Lawsuit), he said that should the incorporation happen, it would affect the Town budget by $17 million dollars. When the incorporation proponents repeatedly stated that they were planning all along to contract for Town services with the Town which might affect the budget in total but would make up a vast portion of the tax revenue that Mr Feiner claimed would disappear. And then he often said he would not do that deal. If effect saying, “Screw unincorporated Greenburgh residents!”

In a Town that is making Yonkers, known as the City of Hills – where nothing is on the level, look more and more like the Flatlands of New York, has had Mr Feiner enlisting the assistance of Councilman Jones, who has parroted the same mantra. Why would these representatives not do the best thing for the Town should the referendum go through? Why would they purposely sabotage the revenue of the Unincorporated budget? Jones, is also no stranger to controversy, having had two Ethics violation charges brought against him with the hapless Ethics Board. We have to say, though, that an Ethics Board in Town of Greenburgh is a contradiction of terms and has proven time and again to be a waste of time and energy when legitimate ethics violation charges have been levied.

In an interesting exchange of back and forth statements by Mr Feiner and EIC President Jeff Sherwin, the reality is that Mr Feiner, a purportedly non-practicing attorney, has  childishly slung verbal jabs at Mr Sherwin, the EIC and incorporation proponents just short of sticking out his tongue at them and saying, “Nan, na, na-na nah.” Considering Mr Feiner is supposed to represent all residents and taxpayers, he should be looking to sit down with the EIC and work out a number of things. First, can the EIC be reasoned with to back off the consolidation drive; second, could Mr Feiner help them draw up the correct proposal so it can go through; third, should the referendum application go through again – and there’s no reason to think it won’t – would Mr Feiner offer a Town Hall meeting to discuss openly and most importantly, honestly, what can and cannot be done should the referendum pass.

Mr Feiner only knows how to work with residents when they agree to what he wants and doesn’t allow differing points of view. This needs to change. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh. 

Edgemont Incorporation On Hold Due To Ruling

This story has been updated.

The Decision:

MATTER OF BERNSTEIN v FEINER

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court

Clerk of the Court