Deraffele v. Vill. of Scarsdale Water Dep't

Citation208 A.D.3d 781,172 N.Y.S.3d 634 (Mem)
Decision Date24 August 2022
Docket Number2019–10377,Index No. 2776/18
Parties In the Matter of John DERAFFELE, appellant, v. VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE WATER DEPARTMENT, respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

208 A.D.3d 781
172 N.Y.S.3d 634 (Mem)

In the Matter of John DERAFFELE, appellant,
v.
VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE WATER DEPARTMENT, respondent.

2019–10377
Index No. 2776/18

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

Submitted—May 23, 2022
August 24, 2022


John DeRaffele, New Rochelle, NY, appellant pro se.

Wayne D. Esannason, Scarsdale, NY, for respondent.

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent concerning the amount owed by the petitioner as reflected on a water bill dated May 1, 2018, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Susan Cacace, J.), dated July 19, 2019. The order and judgment granted the respondent's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent, Village of Scarsdale Water Department (hereinafter the Water Department), maintains its own water operating system, from which it supplies water to residents of the Village of Scarsdale and contiguous properties situated in the Town of Mamaroneck and the City of New

172 N.Y.S.3d 635

Rochelle. The Water Department provides quarterly bills to each customer showing the actual or estimated amount of water consumed by that customer during a specified period of time. In these bills, customers are charged a base rate for an allocated amount of water consumption, and are charged an excess rate when they exceed the allocated amount of water consumption.

The petitioner is the owner of property located in the City of New Rochelle (hereinafter the subject property). The Water Department provides water service to the subject property.

The petitioner received a water bill from the Water Department dated May 1, 2018, for the period of December 26, 2017, to March 27, 2018, indicating that the subject property had consumed a total of 86 units of water during that period, and that the petitioner owed the total sum of $762.06 as a result. The water bill included, among other things, a charge of $195.50 at the base rate for the subject property's consumption of the first 50 units of water, and a charge of $492.66 as a penalty based upon the subject property's consumption of more than 50 units of water.

On or about and between May 1,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • C & B Realty #3, LLC v. Van Loan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 24, 2022
    ...Asphalt Co. v. Dark, 294 A.D.2d 585, 586, 742 N.Y.S.2d 891, quoting Matter of Stork Rest. v. Boland, 282 N.Y. 256, 267, 26 N.E.2d 247 ).208 A.D.3d 781 Here, contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the ZBA thoroughly weighed the statutory factors and its determination had a rational basis ......
  • John v. Dobson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 24, 2022
    ...930, 64 N.Y.S.3d 123 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gaudio v. City of New York, 189 A.D.3d 1546, 1547–1548, 140 N.Y.S.3d 102 ; 172 N.Y.S.3d 634 Gobin v. Delgado, 142 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 38 N.Y.S.3d 63 ). "There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident" ( Cox v. Nunez, 23 ......

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