Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of Middletown v. City of Middletown

• Citation: 280 Ed. Law Rep. 983,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04746,946 N.Y.S.2d 208,96 A.D.3d 840
• Parties: In the Matter of ENLARGED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MIDDLETOWN, respondent, v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN, et al., appellants.
• Decision Date: 13 June 2012
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

96 A.D.3d 840
946 N.Y.S.2d 208
280 Ed. Law Rep. 983
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04746

In the Matter of ENLARGED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MIDDLETOWN, respondent,
v.
CITY OF MIDDLETOWN, et al., appellants.

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

June 13, 2012.

[946 N.Y.S.2d 209]

Richard Guertin, Corporation Counsel, Middletown, N.Y. (Alex Smith and Robert N. Isseks of counsel), for appellants.

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Rochester, N.Y. (Edward P. Hourihan, Jr., and Joseph S. Nacca of counsel), for respondent.

John A. Mancini, Albany, N.Y., for amicus curiae New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials and Michael E. Kenneally, Albany, N.Y., for amicus curiae Association of Towns of the State of New York (one brief filed).

Jay Worona and Kimberly A. Fanniff, Latham, N.Y., for amicus curiae New York State School Boards Association, Inc. (one brief filed).

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

[96 A.D.3d 840]In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Middletown dated March 26, 2010, purportedly declining to review the petitioner/plaintiff's application for approval to connect a building to the sewer system of the City of Middletown unless and until the petitioner/plaintiff paid for the reconstruction, repair, or replacement of a certain existing sewer line owned and operated by the City of Middletown, and action for a judgment declaring, among other things, that a city may not require a city school district to pay for the reconstruction, repair, or replacement of an existing city sewer line as a precondition to the consideration and review of any application by the school district for a permit connecting a school district's new building to that sewer line, the respondents/defendants appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange [96 A.D.3d 841]County (Lubell, J.), dated January 26, 2011, which, in effect, granted the petition, annulled the determination, granted the petitioner/plaintiff's motion for summary judgment declaring, inter alia, that a city may not require a school district to pay for the reconstruction, repair, or replacement of an existing city sewer line as a precondition to the consideration and review of any application by a city school district for a permit to connect its new building to that sewer line, and, in effect, denied the respondents/defendants' application to dismiss the complaint as premature.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, the petitioner/plaintiff's motion

[946 N.Y.S.2d 210]

is denied, the respondents/defendants' application is granted, and the complaint is dismissed as premature.

The Supreme Court “may render a declaratory judgment having the effect of a final judgment as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy...