Clover/Allen's Creek Neighborhood Ass'n LLC v. M&F, LLC, 286

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 105 N.Y.S.3d 659,173 A.D.3d 1828
• Docket Number: CA 18–02078,286
• Parties: In the Matter of CLOVER/ALLEN'S CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LLC, Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M&F, LLC, Daniele SPC, LLC, Mucca Mucca LLC, Mardanth Enterprises, Inc., M&F, LLC, Daniele SPC, LLC, Mucca Mucca LLC, Mardanth Enterprises, Inc., Collectively Doing Business as Daniele Family Companies, Town of Brighton, Town Board of Town of Brighton, Comprised of Supervisor William Moehle and Members Jason S. Diponzio, James R. Vogel, Christopher K. Werner, Robin R. Wilt, in their Capacities as Members of that Body, Respondents-Defendants-Respondents, et al., Respondents-Defendants.
• Decision Date: 28 June 2019

173 A.D.3d 1828
105 N.Y.S.3d 659

In the Matter of CLOVER/ALLEN'S CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LLC, Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M&F, LLC, Daniele SPC, LLC, Mucca Mucca LLC, Mardanth Enterprises, Inc., M&F, LLC, Daniele SPC, LLC, Mucca Mucca LLC, Mardanth Enterprises, Inc., Collectively Doing Business as Daniele Family Companies, Town of Brighton, Town Board of Town of Brighton, Comprised of Supervisor William Moehle and Members Jason S. Diponzio, James R. Vogel, Christopher K. Werner, Robin R. Wilt, in their Capacities as Members of that Body, Respondents-Defendants-Respondents, et al., Respondents-Defendants.

286
CA 18–02078

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: June 28, 2019

NIXON PEABODY LLP, ROCHESTER (LAURIE STYKA BLOOM, Buffalo, OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT.

WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP, ROCHESTER (WARREN B. ROSENBAUM OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS–DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS M & F, LLC, DANIELE SPC, LLC, MUCCA MUCCA LLC, MARDANTH ENTERPRISES, INC., M & F, LLC, DANIELE SPC, LLC, MUCCA MUCCA LLC, AND MARDANTH ENTERPRISES, INC., COLLECTIVELY DOING BUSINESS AS DANIELE FAMILY COMPANIES.

HARRIS BEACH PLLC, PITTSFORD (JOHN A. MANCUSO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS–DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS TOWN OF BRIGHTON, AND TOWN BOARD OF TOWN OF BRIGHTON, COMPRISED OF SUPERVISOR WILLIAM MOEHLE AND MEMBERS JASON S. DIPONZIO, JAMES R. VOGEL, CHRISTOPHER K. WERNER, ROBIN R. WILT, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THAT BODY.

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (CHARLES W. MALCOMB OF COUNSEL), FOR FINGER LAKES CONFERENCE, INC., CATSKILL MOUNTAIN CLUB, PARKS AND TRAILS NEW YORK, AND ADIRONDACK MOUNTAIN CLUB, NEW YORK, AMICUS CURIAE.

THE ZOGHLIN GROUP, PLLC, ROCHESTER (MINDY L. ZOGHLIN OF COUNSEL), FOR BRIGHTON GRASSROOTS, LLC, AMICUS CURIAE.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

105 N.Y.S.3d 661

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

173 A.D.3d 1828

It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motions in part with respect to the second cause of action and vacating the fifth and sixth decretal paragraphs and as modified the order and judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner-plaintiff (petitioner), a limited liability company formed for the purpose of, among other things, protecting the recreational character of the area around Clover Street and Allen's Creek Road in respondent-defendant Town

173 A.D.3d 1829

of Brighton (Town), commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action against the Town, respondent-defendant Town Board of the Town (Town Board), and respondents-defendants M & F, LLC, Daniele SPC, LLC, Mucca Mucca LLC, and Mardanth Enterprises, Inc., collectively doing business as Daniele Family Companies (collectively, developers), among others. This matter stems from petitioner's opposition to the developers' proposed project to build a 93,000–square–foot commercial plaza in the Town near Clover Street and Allen's Creek Road (project), which purportedly encroaches upon a 10–foot wide strip of land over which the Town has perpetual non-exclusive easements to maintain a pedestrian pathway for public use (Town Easements). As relevant to this appeal, petitioner sought in its second cause of action a judgment declaring that the Town Easements are subject to the public trust doctrine and that the Town

105 N.Y.S.3d 662

cannot convey the easements to the developers until it obtains approval from the New York State Legislature. In its third cause of action, petitioner sought a judgment invalidating the actions of the Town and the Town Board (collectively, Town respondents) concerning the project taken at their meeting on January 24, 2018 based on the Town Board's purported violations of the Open Meetings Law.

After answering, the Town respondents and the developers separately moved to dismiss the petition-complaint against them under, inter alia, CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) and CPLR 7804(f). Supreme Court granted the motions, dismissed the first, third and fourth causes of action against the developers and the Town respondents (collectively, respondents), and issued a declaration in favor of respondents with respect to the second cause of action. As limited by its brief, petitioner appeals from the order and judgment insofar as it dismissed the third cause of action against respondents and issued a declaration in their favor with respect to the second cause of action.

We agree with petitioner that the court erred in declaring in favor of respondents that the public trust doctrine is inapplicable to the Town Easements, and we therefore modify the order and judgment accordingly. The public trust doctrine provides that dedicated parkland or public use land in New York is "impressed with a public trust, requiring...