Vil. of Chestnut v. Ramapo

Citation45 A.D.3d 74,2007 NY Slip Op 6434,841 N.Y.S.2d 321
Decision Date14 August 2007
Docket NumberNo. 2005-08757,2005-08757
PartiesIn the Matter of VILLAGE OF CHESTNUT RIDGE et al., Appellants, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF RAMAPO et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
OPINION OF THE COURT

SPOLZINO, J.P.

The appellants, four villages located within the Town of Ramapo and two residents of the Town, challenge the Town's enactment of a local law permitting adult student living facilities in certain residential zones adjacent to the four villages. The Town cross-moved to dismiss the combined amended petition/complaint (hereinafter the amended petition) in this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action on the grounds that the four villages do not have legal capacity to sue and that the appellants collectively lack standing to raise the claims asserted here. We conclude that it is within the authority granted by the Legislature to the four villages to sue on the claims that are made here, that Town Law § 264 (4) does not deprive the four villages of either capacity or standing to assert those claims, and that the appellants have standing to assert some, but not all, of the claims that they raise.

The events leading to this litigation began in the spring of 2004, when the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter the Town Board) proposed to enact a local law amending the Town's zoning code to permit, as a conditional use, the construction and operation of "adult student living facilities" in certain residential zones. The proposed law defined an "adult student living facility" as "[h]ousing designated to be used only for adult married students, faculty, spouses and minor children while the adult student is pursuing full time post secondary education at an educational institution." The term "adult student" was further defined to encompass "[f]ull time married students attending a post secondary level educational institution whether for general or religious instruction."

The combined petition/complaint (hereinafter the petition) alleged that the proposed law was intended to address a finding in the Town's recently adopted comprehensive plan that such facilities were necessary to accommodate the growing number of married students attending Orthodox Jewish religious educational institutions in the Town. By virtue of the lot size requirements articulated in the proposed local law, the proposed permitted use was anticipated to be applicable initially only to four sites in the unincorporated area of the Town. Each of those sites is located adjacent to or near the border of one or more of the four villages, and all of those sites are located within two miles of each other.

The Town forwarded the proposed local law to the County of Rockland for its review and recommendations, in accordance with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 239-m, and held a public hearing with respect to the proposed local law on June 2, 2004. Acting as lead agency pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]), the Town Board thereafter classified the adoption of the proposed local law as a Type I action under SEQRA, presumptively requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement (hereinafter EIS). The Town Board nevertheless issued a negative declaration, finding that the enactment of the local law would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and thus did not require the preparation of an EIS. Despite several negative comments from the Rockland County Department of Planning, the Town Board, on June 15, 2004, unanimously enacted a modified version of the proposed law as Local Law No. 9 (2004) of Town of Ramapo (hereinafter the adult student housing law).

In October 2004 the Village of Chestnut Ridge, the Village of Montebello, the Village of Pomona, and the Village of Wesley Hills, all of which are located within the Town of Ramapo, together with, among others, Milton B. Shapiro and Sonya Shapiro, who are residents of the Town, commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and action (hereinafter this proceeding) against the Town, the Town Board, the Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter the Planning Board), and the Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter the Board of Appeals), as well as against Scenic Development, LLC, a developer involved in the development of the four sites, and Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim of Radin (hereinafter Chofetz Chaim), an Orthodox Jewish organization that was anticipated to own and operate adult student housing for its members on the four sites (hereinafter collectively the defendants).

Subsequent to the adoption of the adult student housing law, but prior to the commencement of this proceeding, the Town initiated a process leading to the adoption of a comprehensive revision of its zoning law. The local law that was proposed to accomplish that revision included the provisions permitting adult student housing facilities that had been enacted by the adult student housing law, with minor changes. After conducting an environmental review that did not include additional study of the potential impacts resulting from the adoption of the adult student housing law, the Town Board enacted the revised comprehensive zoning law in November 2004. During the same period, Chofetz Chaim applied to the Planning Board for site plan approval to permit the construction of adult student housing on one of the four sites. The Planning Board issued a negative declaration with respect to the site plan, thus determining that the construction of the facility would not have a significant impact on the environment and, concomitantly, foregoing the preparation of an EIS in connection with that project. Shortly thereafter, with the permission of the Supreme Court, the appellants amended the petition so as to include a CPLR article 78 challenge to the Town Board's adoption of the comprehensive zoning law and the Planning Board's issuance of the negative declaration with respect to the Chofetz Chaim site plan application.

The amended petition asserts thirteen causes of action. The first four causes of action allege that, in adopting the adult student housing law, the Town failed, in four different respects, to comply with the requirements of SEQRA. The fifth and sixth causes of action make similar assertions with respect to the subsequent adoption of the revised comprehensive zoning law. The seventh cause of action alleges that the adult student housing law is inconsistent with the Town's comprehensive plan and thus constitutes impermissible spot zoning. The eighth and ninth causes of action complain of procedural infirmities in the adoption of the adult student housing law under the Municipal Home Rule Law and the General Municipal Law, respectively. The tenth and eleventh causes of action allege constitutional violations, specifically, discrimination on the basis of familial status based upon the exclusion of unmarried adult student housing from the new zoning district, in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and New York Constitution, article I, §§ 6, 11, and in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution insofar as the adult student housing law is intended to benefit a particular religious community. The twelfth cause of action asserts that the adoption of the adult student housing law is illegal under New York law in that it is not rationally related to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The thirteenth cause of action asserts that the Planning Board failed to take the hard look required by SEQRA in connection with the application for approval of the site plan proposed by Chofetz Chaim for one of the four adult student housing sites.

Prior to answering the amended petition, the Town, the Town Board, the Planning Board, and the Board of Appeals cross-moved to dismiss the amended petition, asserting, inter alia, that the four villages (hereinafter the Villages) did not have legal capacity to sue and that the appellants collectively lacked standing to raise the claims asserted here. Scenic Development, LLC, and Chofetz Chaim each separately cross-moved for the same relief on the same grounds. The Supreme Court agreed with the defendants, granted the relevant branches of the cross motions, and dismissed the amended petition insofar as asserted by the appellants. This appeal ensued.

The first issue presented is the Villages' legal capacity to prosecute this proceeding. "Capacity to sue is a threshold matter allied with, but conceptually distinct from, the question of standing. As a general matter, capacity `concerns a litigant's power to appear and bring its grievance before the court'" (Silver v Pataki, 96 NY2d 532, 537 [2001], quoting Community Bd. 7 of Borough of Manhattan v Schaffer, 84 NY2d 148, 155 [1994]; see Matter of Graziano v County of Albany, 3 NY3d 475, 478-479 [2004]). Capacity to sue can be derived from an express statutory grant, as in the case of a business corporation or unincorporated association (see Community Bd. 7 of Borough of Manhattan v Schaffer, supra at 155), or can be inferred, even in the absence of statutory authority, where the power to sue and be sued is a necessary incident of the party's responsibilities (see Silver v Pataki, supra at 537-538; Matter of Graziano v County of Albany, supr...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Mosdos Chofetz Chaim Inc v. Vill. Of Wesley Hills
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 31, 2010
    ...¶¶ 108-09, 115.) Defendants' actions notwithstanding, Ramapo enacted the ASHL, Local Law No. 9-2004, on June 15, 2004. See Chestnut Ridge I, 841 N.Y.S.2d at 327; see also Chestnut Ridge II, 2008 WL 4525753, at *1. Sometime after passage of the ASHL, YCC-then the owner of the Nike Site-appli......
  • Youngewirth v. Town of Ramapo Town Bd.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 8, 2017
    ...584 ; 41 Kew Gardens Rd. Assoc. v. Tyburski, 124 A.D.2d 553, 507 N.Y.S.2d 698 ; see generally Matter of Village of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo, 45 A.D.3d 74, 87, 841 N.Y.S.2d 321 ).There is no merit to the respondents' contention that denial of final subdivision approval has no effect ......
  • Sullivan Farms IV, LLC v. Vill. of Wurtsboro
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 10, 2015
    ...Bd. of Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 369–370, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291 [1972] ; Matter of Village of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo, 45 A.D.3d 74, 88, 841 N.Y.S.2d 321 [2007], lvs. dismissed 12 N.Y.3d 793, 879 N.Y.S.2d 39, 906 N.E.2d 1072 [2009], 15 N.Y.3d 817, 908 N.Y.S.2d 149, ......
  • Bernstein v. Vill. of Wesley Hills
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 27, 2015
    ...and that Wesley Hills had standing to challenge Kiryas Radin. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 70 (citing In re Vill. of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo, 45 A.D.3d 74, 841 N.Y.S.2d 321, 333 (2007) ( “Chestnut Ridge I ”)).) The court held that the Villages had “ ‘established a basis for legitimate concern ........
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • How Environmental Review Can Generate Car-Induced Pollution: A Case Study
    • United States
    • Sustainable Development Law & Policy No. XIV-1, January 2014
    • January 1, 2014
    ...productivity, and any irreversible commitment of resources the action may cause. Id. 22 See Vill. of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo , 841 N.Y.S.2d 321, 332 (App. Div. 2007). 23 See Town of Amsterdam v. Amsterdam Ind. Dev. Agency , 945 N.Y.S.2d 434, 440 (App. Div. 2012) (explaining that th......
  • Laplace Rising: The Story of How a Tiny Community in Southern Louisiana Will Save the Largest Delta in North America
    • United States
    • Sustainable Development Law & Policy No. XIV-1, January 2014
    • January 1, 2014
    ...productivity, and any irreversible commitment of resources the action may cause. Id. 22 See Vill. of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo , 841 N.Y.S.2d 321, 332 (App. Div. 2007). 23 See Town of Amsterdam v. Amsterdam Ind. Dev. Agency , 945 N.Y.S.2d 434, 440 (App. Div. 2012) (explaining that th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT