Baldwin Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Cnty. of Nassau

• Decision Date: 05 September 2018
• Docket Number: 3069/11
• Citation: Baldwin Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Cnty. of Nassau, 62 Misc.3d 236, 84 N.Y.S.3d 699 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)
• Parties: BALDWIN UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Bellmore Merrick Central High School District, Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Nassau County, Carle Place Union Free School District, East Williston Union Free School District, Farmingdale Union Free School District, Freeport Union Union Free School District, Garden City Union Free School District, Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School District, Hicksville Union Free School District, Island Trees Union Free School District, Long Beach City School District, Massapequa Union Free School District, Mineola Union Free School District, Plainedge Union Free School District, Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District, Rockville Centre Union Free School District, Uniondale Union Free School District and West Hempstead Union Free School District, Petitioners-, Plaintiffs, v. The COUNTY OF NASSAU, The Nassau County Sewer and Storm Water District and the Nassau County Sewer Finance Authority, Respondents-, Defendants. In the Matter of the Board of Education of the East Meadow Union Free School District, the Board of Education of the Westbury Union Free School District, and the National Center for Disability Services, Inc. d/b/a Abilities, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, for a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 and Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules v. The County of Nassau, the Nassau County Legislature and Edward Mangano, as Nassau County Executive, Respondents-Defendants. Index No. 3075/11 Action No. 2 Plaintiff Motion Seq. # 008 Defendant Motion Seq. # 007 Hofstra University, Petitioner-Plaintiff, v. Nassau County, New York, and the Nassau County Treasurer, Respondents-Defendants. Index No. 3203/11 Action No. 3 Plaintiff Motion Seq. # 007 Defendant Motion Seq. # 007 St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, New York, St. Francis Research and Educational Corporation, WSNCHS North, Inc., d/b/a St. Joseph's Hospital and Mercy Medical Center, Chaminade High School, Holy Trinity Diocesan High School, Kellenberg Memorial High School, Our Lady of Mercy Academy and St. Dominic Parish & Schools, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. Nassau County, New York the Nassau County Treasurer, Respondents-Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

62 Misc.3d 236

84 N.Y.S.3d 699

BALDWIN UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Bellmore Merrick Central High School District, Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Nassau County, Carle Place Union Free School District, East Williston Union Free School District, Farmingdale Union Free School District, Freeport Union Union Free School District, Garden City Union Free School District, Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School District, Hicksville Union Free School District, Island Trees Union Free School District, Long Beach City School District, Massapequa Union Free School District, Mineola Union Free School District, Plainedge Union Free School District, Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District, Rockville Centre Union Free School District, Uniondale Union Free School District and West Hempstead Union Free School District, Petitioners-, Plaintiffs,

v.The COUNTY OF NASSAU, The Nassau County Sewer and Storm Water District and the Nassau County Sewer Finance Authority, Respondents-, Defendants.

In the Matter of the Board of Education of the East Meadow Union Free School District, the Board of Education of the Westbury Union Free School District, and the National Center for Disability Services, Inc. d/b/a Abilities, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, for a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 and Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules

v.The County of Nassau, the Nassau County Legislature and Edward Mangano, as Nassau County Executive, Respondents-Defendants. Index No. 3075/11 Action No. 2 Plaintiff Motion Seq. # 008 Defendant Motion Seq. # 007

Hofstra University, Petitioner-Plaintiff,

v.Nassau County, New York, and the Nassau County Treasurer, Respondents-Defendants. Index No. 3203/11 Action No. 3 Plaintiff Motion Seq. # 007 Defendant Motion Seq. # 007

St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, New York, St. Francis Research and Educational Corporation, WSNCHS North, Inc., d/b/a St. Joseph's Hospital and Mercy Medical Center, Chaminade High School, Holy Trinity Diocesan High School, Kellenberg Memorial High School, Our Lady of Mercy Academy and St. Dominic Parish & Schools, Petitioners-Plaintiffs,

v.Nassau County, New York the Nassau County Treasurer, Respondents-Defendants.

3069/11

Supreme Court, Nassau County, New York.

Decided on September 5, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BALDWIN UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BELLMORE-MERRICK CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES OF NASSAU COUNTY, FREEPORT UNION UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, HEWLETT-WOODMERE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, LONG BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, MINEOLA UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINEDGE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ROCKVILLE CENTRE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, UNIONDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, INGERMAN SMITH LLP, BY CARRIE ANNE TONDO, ESQ., 150 MOTOR PARKWAY, SUITE 400, HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788, 631-261-8834, CTONDO@INGERMANSMITH.COM

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CARLE PLACE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, EAST WILLISTON UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, FARMINGDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, GARDEN CITY UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, HICKSVILLE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ISLAND TREES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MASSAPEQUA UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINVIEW-OLD BETHPAGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND WEST HEMPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, GUERCIO AND GUERCIO, L.L.P., BY BARBARA P. ALOE, ESQ., 77 CONKLIN STREET, FARMINGDALE, N.Y. 11735, 516-694-3000, BALOE@GUERCIOLAW.COM

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE EAST MEADOW UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE WESTBURY UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR DISABILITY SERVICES, INC. d/b/a ABILITIES, JASPAN SCHLESINGER LLP, BY LAUREL KRETZING, ESQ., NATASHA SHISHOV, ESQ. & SCOTT B. FISHER, ESQ., 300 GARDEN CITY PLAZA, GARDEN CITY, N.Y. 11530, 516-746-8000, SFISHER@JASPANLLP.COM

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, HARRIS BEACH PLLC BY KEITH CORBETT, ESQ., 333 EARLE OVINGTON BLVD., SUITE 901, UNIONDALE, N.Y. 11553, 516-880-8489, KCORBETT@HARRISBEACH.COM

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, ROSLYN, NEW YORK, ST. FRANCIS RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL CORPORATION, WSNCHS NORTH, INC., D/B/A ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL AND MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, CHAMINADE HIGH SCHOOL, HOLY TRINITY DIOCESAN HIGH SCHOOL, KELLENBERG MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, OUR LADY OF MERCY ACADEMY AND ST. DOMINIC PARISH & SCHOOLS, HARRIS BEACH PLLC BY KEITH CORBETT, ESQ., 333 EARLE OVINGTON BLVD., SUITE 901, UNIONDALE, NY.Y 11553, 516-880-8489, KCORBETT@HARRISBEACH.COM

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS: ACTION # 1 - THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, THE NASSAU COUNTY SEWER AND STORM WATER DISTRICT AND THE NASSAU COUNTY SEWER FINANCE AUTHORITY, ACTION # 2 - THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, THE NASSAU COUNTY LEGISLATURE AND EDWARD MANGANO, AS NASSAU COUNTY EXECUTIVE, ACTION # 3 - NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK, AND THE NASSAU COUNTY TREASURER, ACTION # 4 - NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK, THE NASSAU COUNTY TREASURER, SPOLZINO SMITH BUSS & JACOBS, LLP BY JOANNA M. TOPPING, ESQ., 81 MAIN STREET, WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. 10601, 914-457-4166, JTOPPING@SSBJLAW.COM

Antonio I. Brandveen, J.

The Petitioners/Plaintiffs (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") in these four consolidated actions¹ - Baldwin Union Free School District, et al v. County of Nassau² , Index No. 3069/11, Board of Education of East Meadow, et al v. County of Nassau, Index No. 3075/11, Hofstra University v. County of Nassau, Index No. 3203/11, and St. Francis Hospital et al. v. County of Nassau³ , Index No. 3335/11 - all challenge the validity of Nassau County Ordinance 184-2010 and the Amendment to the Ordinance No. 199-2010. They move in each action for orders and judgments, pursuant to CPLR § 3212, granting summary judgment declaring that Nassau County's Ordinance 184-2010 and the Amendment to the Ordinance 199-2010 are unconstitutional, null, void and unenforceable, and dismissing all counterclaims interposed as against them⁴ .

The Respondents/Defendants, County of Nassau et al ( hereinafter collectively referred to as "County") , oppose the motions and cross-move⁵ against all plaintiffs for orders and judgments, pursuant to CPLR § 3212 and CPLR § 3211 (a)(7), granting summary judgment dismissing the complaints and petitions in the four consolidated actions, and declaring Nassau County Ordinance 184-2010 and the Amendment to the Ordinance No. 199-2010 to be valid and enforceable.

The plaintiffs' motions and the County's cross-motion are consolidated for disposition and decided as follows:

The four actions at bar arise from the County's adoption and enactment of Ordinance 184-2010 ("Ordinance"), on November 3, 2010, and the Amendment to the Ordinance 199-2010 ("Amendment"), on December 11, 2010 (collectively referred to as "The Ordinance") which sought to impose "Service Charges" (hereinafter "service charges") on certain owners or occupants of real property (hereinafter "Exempt Users"⁶ ) which have historically not contributed financially for their usage of the sewer system and facilities owned and maintained by the County and its entities. The Ordinance also sought to impose service charges on non-exempt "High Water Users" which would be required to pay the service charges in addition to their assessed ad valorem taxes⁷ .

"Exempt Users" are defined as certain tax exempt entities, such as school districts, certain hospitals, not-for-profit organizations and other entities, that as a result of their tax-exempt status have not previously paid for their usage of the sewer system on the ground that they are exempt from paying general taxes or the ad valorem taxes the County levies on all taxable properties in Nassau County which receive benefits from the sewer system, either through direct or indirect connection to the system.

"High Water Users" are defined as owners or occupants of real property that utilize the sewage facilities to a greater extent than others, thus resulting in their paying a disproportionally low amount in assessed ad valorem taxes compared to their actual usage.

The Ordinance authorizes the County to impose service charges upon both Exempt and High Water Users for their use of the sewer system at a rate not to exceed $0.01 (one cent) per gallon of water entering the system based on their reported water consumption in 2009, and for subsequent years thereafter.

The Ordinance also provides the service charges would not be imposed on High Water users if the subject property is residential and the user owns or occupies the premises solely as such user's primary residence. Additionally, High Water users are entitled to claim deductions from the service charges for water that is used for irrigation purposes, and commercial or industrial operations, that is not discharged into the County's sewage facilities.

Exempt Users are not entitled to those same deductions.

The Ordinance was to take effect on July 1, 2011.

All of the plaintiffs in these four actions are classified as Exempt Users (i.e., public school districts, private religious schools, certain hospitals, colleges and/or not-for-profit organizations).

The original Ordinance excluded houses of worship, used primarily for religious worship, from the category of Exempt Users subject to service charges. Shortly after its enactment, the Ordinance was amended to add fire companies, voluntary ambulance services and veterans organizations as additional "Excluded Exempt Users" who were not subject to the sewage service charges.

Pursuant to the terms of the Ordinance, the County Treasurer was delegated and authorized to promulgate rules and rate schedules for the creation and collection of the sewer rate charges. The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth "Whereas Clauses" of the Ordinance set forth the defendants' purpose and guiding principles for its enactment, including the Legislature's concern that Exempt Users of the sewer system were not paying their fair share of the cost of the sewer services, and High Water Users were paying too little for the sewer services in light of their unusually high usage of the system and the desire to impose service charges...