Town of Monroe Answer - Municipal Challengers

7/25/2019 Town of Monroe Answer - Municipal Challengers

1/29

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF ORANGENINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS PART- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -XVILLAGE OF SOUTH BLOOMING GROVE, et

al.

Petitioners,

For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78of the Civil Practice Law and Rules

- against -

Index No. 7410/2015Proceeding No. 1

Hon. Francesca E. Connolly

VILLAGE OF KIRYAS JOEL BOARD OFTRUSTEES, et al.,

Respondents,

EMANUEL LEONOROVITZ, et al.

Additional Respondents

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -XPRESERVE HUDSON VALLEY, et al. Index No. 8118/2015

Proceeding No. 2

Petitioners,

- against

TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MONROE, et al.

Respondents/Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

VERIFIED ANSWER TO AMEND VERIFIED PETITION

OF PETITIONERS IN PROCEEDING NO. 1

Respondents-Defendants, Town of Monroe Town Board and Town of

Monroe, (collectively Monroe or the Town) by their

attorneys, DICKOVER. DONNELLY & DONOVAN, LLP, respectfully


2/29

submit the foregoing Verified Answer to the Amended Verified

Petition filed by Petitioners Village of South Blooming Grove et

al. in Proceeding No. 1 (the Petition):

1.With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of

the Petition, the Town admits that Petitioners seek the relief

specified therein, but denies that Petitioners are entitled

thereto.

2. The Town admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2

of the Petition.

3.With respect to the allegations contained in the first

sentence in Paragraph 3 of the Petition, the Town lacks

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth. With respect to the

allegations in the second sentence in Paragraph 3, the Town

refers the Court to the documents referenced therein for

determination of their content, meaning and effect and denies

Petitioners characterization thereof.

4. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4

of the Petition, the Town denies that the GEIS failed to take a

hard look at the potential environmental impacts of the

annexation, and otherwise refers the Court to the documents

referenced therein for determination of their content, meaning

and effect and denies Petitioners characterization thereof.



3/29

the Petition, the Town refers the Court to the documents














and effect and denies Petitioners characterization thereof, and

with respect to specific subparagraphs therein states as

follows:

a.With respect to the allegations set forth in the

first sentence of Paragraph 8 (a) of the

Petition, the Town refers the Court to the

documents referenced therein for determination of

their content, meaning and effect and denies

Petitioners characterization thereof. With

respect to the allegations in the second


4/29

sentence, the Town states that such allegations

set forth conclusions of law for which no

responsive pleading is required, but to the

extent an answer is made, the Town refers the

Court to the statutes and/or regulations

referenced therein for determination of their

content, meaning and effect, and denies

Petitioners characterizations thereof.

b.With respect to the allegations set forth in the

first sentence of Paragraph 8 (b) of the

Petition, the Town refers the Court to the

documents referenced therein for determination of

their content, meaning and effect and denies

Petitioners characterization thereof. With

respect to the allegations related to the

dynamics of the Satmar Hasidim population outside

of Kiryas Joel, the Town lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations, except denies

Petitioners characterization of the Town s

environmental review..

c.With respect to the allegations set forth in

Paragraph 8 (c) of the Petition, the Town refers

the Court to the documents referenced therein for


5/29

determination of their content, meaning and

effect and denies Petitioners characterization

thereof.





10. With respect to the allegations set forth in the first

sentence of Paragraph 10 of the Petition, the Town refers the

Court to the documents referenced therein for determination of

their content, meaning and effect and denies Petitioners

characterization thereof. With respect to allegations referring

to the Town of Monroe Zoning Code, the Town states that such

allegations set forth conclusions of law for which no responsive

pleading is required, but to the extent an answer is made, the

Town refers the Court to the statutes and/or regulations


and effect, and otherwise lacks knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations

set forth.

11. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the

Petition, the Town admits that it has proactively planned for

provision of municipal water and sewer services for its


6/29

residents, admits that CGR and Chazen provided a report, but

otherwise refers the Court to the documents referenced therein

for determination of their content, meaning and effect and

denies Petitioners characterization thereof. With respect to

the final sentence in Paragraph 11, the Town states that such

allegations set forth conclusions of law for which no responsive

pleading is required, but to the extent an answer is made, the

Town refers the Court to the statutes and/or regulations


and effect, and denies Petitioners characterizations thereof.


Petition, the Town denies that environmental review for the

annexations was flawed, admits that the Town has obtained a

water withdrawal permit from NYSDEC for a groundwater well in

the Town of Cornwall, and otherwise lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth.


of the Petition, the Town refers the Court to the documents



14. With respect to allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of

the Petition, the Town denies that it failed to take a hard

look at the potential environmental impacts of the annexation


7/29

petitions, and otherwise states that such allegations set forth

conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required,

but to the extent an answer is made, the Town refers the Court

to the statutes and/or regulations referenced therein for

determination of their content, meaning and effect, and

otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth.


of the Petition, the Town admits that Petitioners seek the

relief specified therein, but denies that Petitioners are

entitled thereto.


of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of South

Blooming Grove is an incorporated Village, admits that South

Blooming Grove adjoins limited portions of the land proposed to

be annexed in the 507 Petition, denies that South Blooming Grove

adjoins land proposed to be annexed in the 164 Petition, and

otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth.


of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Blooming

Grove is Village in Orange County, admits that the Village

adjoins limited portions of the land proposed to be annexed in

the 507 Petition, denies that the Village adjoins land proposed


8/29

to be annexed in the 164 Petition, and otherwise lacks knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations set forth.


of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Monroe is

an incorporated Village in Orange County, and otherwise lacks


truth of the allegations set forth.


of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Woodbury is

a Village in Orange County, admits that the Village of Woodbury


both the 507 Petition and 164 Petition, and otherwise lacks




of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Woodbury is

a Village in Orange County, admits that the Village of Woodbury


both the 507 Petition and 164 Petition, and otherwise lacks




of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Harriman is


9/29

a Village in Orange County, and otherwise lacks knowledge or




of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Cornwall-

on-Hudson is a Village in Orange County, admits that the Village

has obtained a water withdrawal permit from the NYSDEC for a

well in Mountainville and that it is legally entitled to connect

to the New York City Aqueduct, and otherwise lacks knowledge or




of the Petition, the Town admits that the Town of Cornwall is a

Town in Orange County, admits that the Village has obtained a

water withdrawal permit from the NYSDEC for a well in

Mountainville and that it is legally entitled to connect to the

New York City Aqueduct, and otherwise lacks knowledge or




of the Petition, the Town admits that the County of Orange is a

County in New York State, admits that the proposed annexation

territories are located in Orange County, denies that the Town

seeks to annex territories, and otherwise lacks knowledge or


10/29




of the Petition, the Town admits that the Town of Chester is a

Town in Orange County, and otherwise lacks knowledge or




of the Petition, the Town admits that the Monroe Joint Fire

District exists, except lacks knowledge or information


set forth regarding its status under New York law or its

organizational history, admits that the MJFDs service area

presently includes land proposed to be annexed, admits that the

MJFD has in the past responded to fires within the Town

pursuant to requests for mutual aid, and otherwise lacks




of the Petition, the Town lacks knowledge or information


set forth, except with respect to allegations concerning the

GEIS, refers the Court to the documents referenced therein for



11/29



of the Petition.


of the Petition.

30. With respect to the allegations set forth in the first

sentence of Paragraph 30 of the Petition, the Town admits the

allegations. With respect to the allegations in the second and

third sentences, the Town refers the Court to the documents



With respect to the final sentence, the Town admits that the

Town Board approved the 164 Petition but not the 507 Petition.


of the Petition.






of the Petition, the allegations set forth conclusions of law

for which no responsive pleading is required, but to the extent

an answer is made, the Town refers the Court to the statutes

and/or regulations referenced therein for determination of their


12/29

content, meaning and effect, and denies Petitioners

characterization thereof.


of the Petition, the Town admits that its principal offices are

in Orange County, and otherwise states that the allegations set

forth conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is

required, but to the extent an answer is made, the Town refers

the Court to the statutes and/or regulations referenced therein

for determination of their content, meaning and effect, and

denies Petitioners characterization thereof.


Petition, the Town lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth.










of the Petition as they relate to the 507-acre annexation.



13/29





of the Petition, the Town admits that comments were submitted on

the DGEIS, and otherwise refers the Court to the documents


and effect and denies Petitionerscharacterization thereof.


of the Petition, the Town admits that the Town of Monroes

consultant JMC submitted comments on the DGEIS, and otherwise









of the Petition, the Town admits that the Town of Monroes

consultant JMC submitted comments on the FGEIS, and otherwise





14/29


of the Petition.




and effect and denies Petitioners characterization thereof. .

ANSWERING THE FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

46. With respect to the allegations incorporated by reference

in Paragraph 46 of the Petition, the Town refers to its

responses to those allegations set forth above.















15/29










of the Petition, including subparagraphs (a) through (d), the

Town refers the Court to the documents referenced therein for

determination of their content, meaning and effect and otherwise

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations set forth.




and effect and otherwise lacks knowledge or information


set forth.




set forth.


16/29





54. The Town denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 54

of the Petition.




set forth.














of the Petition.


17/29


of the Petition, including Footnote 9 thereto, the Town refers

the Court to the documents referenced therein for determination

of their content, meaning and effect and denies Petitioners






62. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph

62 of the Petition, the Town refers the Court to the documents















18/29







of the Petition, including the subparagraphs thereto, the Town







and effect and denies Petitioners characterization thereof and

further states the allegations set forth conclusions of law for

which no responsive pleading is required, but to the extent an

answer is made, the Town refers the Court to the statutes









19/29


of the Petition, including the subparagraphs thereto, the Town












of the Petition, the Town denies that the environmental review

failed to take a hard look as required under SEQRA and otherwise











20/29











ANSWERING THE SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF














21/29






set forth.




set forth.
















22/29






of the Petition.




set forth.


of the Petition.


of the Petition, the Town admits the allegations in the first

and second sentences, but denies the allegations in the third

sentence that these documents are materially inconsistent. With

respect to the allegations set forth in subparagraphs (a)

through (c) of Paragraph 88 of the Petition, the Town refers the

Court to the documents referenced therein for determination of

their content, meaning and effect and denies Petitioners



of the Petition, including subparagraphs (a) through (c)

thereto, the Town refers the Court to the documents referenced


23/29

therein for determination of their content, meaning and effect

and denies Petitioners characterization thereof.




set forth.

















of the Petition.


24/29

ANSWERING THE THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
























25/29

of the Petition.

100.With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph

100 of the Petition, the allegations set forth conclusions of

law for which no responsive pleading is required, but to the

extent an answer is made, the Town refers the Court to the

statutes and/or regulations referenced therein for determination

of their content, meaning and effect, and denies Petitioners


101.The Town denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph

101 of the Petition.

ANSWERING THE FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

102.With respect to the allegations incorporated by reference



103.The Town admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph










26/29















107.The Town denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph


108.The Town denies all other allegations of the Petition not

specifically admitted herein.

AS AND FOR A FIRST OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

109.Petitioners claims are barred, in whole or in part, by

Petitioners failure to exhaust their administrative remedies.


27/29

AS AND FOR A SECOND OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

110.Petitioners lack standing to assert the claims set forth

in the verified petition.

AS AND FOR A THIRD OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

111.Petitioners claims are barred, in whole or in part, by

their failure to comply with CPLR 5015.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

112.Petitioners lack capacity to assert the claims set forth

in the verified petition and compliant.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

113.Upon information and belief, Petitioners fail to obtain

legislative authorization by properly adopted resolution to

commence this proceeding and the proceeding should, therefore,

be dismissed.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

114.The Petition fails to state a claim or cause of action

upon which relief can be granted.

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this

Court enter a judgment dismissing the verified petition in its


28/29

entirety, awarding it the costs, disbursements and attorneys

fees incurred in this proceeding and awarding it such other

relief as this Court shall deem just, proper or equitable.

Dated: January 22, 2016Goshen, New York.

______________________Michael H. Donnelly

DICKOVER.DONNELLY &DONOVAN,LLPAttorneys for Town of Monroe Town Board

and Town of Monroe28 Bruen Place PO Box 610

Goshen, New York 10924(845) 294-9447

O:\MHD\Municipal\T-Monroe\KJ Annexation\164 Pleadings\Answer - Municipalites.docx


29/29

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK ::ss.:

COUNTY OF ORANGE :

HARLEY DOLES being duly sworn, deposes and says that:

I am one of the Supervisor for the Town of Monroe, one of

the respondents/defendants in the within proceeding; I have read

the annexed Answer, know the contents thereof and the same are

true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are

stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to

those matters, I believe them to be true.

____________________________HARLEY DOLES

Sworn to before me this______ day of January, 2016.

____________________________

MICHAEL H. DONNELLY

Notary Public, State of New York

Qualified in Orange County

Commission Expires on July 12, 2014

Town of Monroe Answer - Municipal Challengers

Documents

Transcript of Town of Monroe Answer - Municipal Challengers