In the Matter of Labarbera v. Town of Woodstock

• Decision Date: 23 October 2008
• Docket Number: 504047
• Citation: 865 N.Y.S.2d 758,55 A.D.3d 1093,2008 NY Slip Op 08052
• Parties: In the Matter of VINCENT LABARBERA et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF WOODSTOCK et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

55 A.D.3d 1093

865 N.Y.S.2d 758

2008 NY Slip Op 08052

In the Matter of VINCENT LABARBERA et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF WOODSTOCK et al., Respondents.

504047

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

October 23, 2008.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Work, J.), entered October 5, 2007 in Ulster County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, granted respondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition/complaint.

Lahtinen, J.

Petitioners challenge the decision of respondent Town of Woodstock in Ulster County to convey a conservation easement over part of a 75-acre town parcel (commonly known as the Comeau property) to the Woodstock Land Trust, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation, for the purpose of preserving a portion of the parcel for recreational purposes. After the Town Board voted to take such action and before the scheduled voter referendum, petitioners commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking to prohibit the conveyance. An agreement was reached to allow the referendum, but restrict the Town's ability to make the conveyance pending resolution of this litigation. The resolution passed 1,326 to 856 in November 2003. Thereafter, respondents moved to dismiss this petition/complaint. Supreme Court (Doyle, J.) dismissed all causes of action except one (i.e., the second cause of action) and, on appeal by petitioners, we affirmed (29 AD3d 1054 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 844 [2006]). The remaining cause of action basically asserted irregularities in the referendum process. Following extensive disclosure regarding the remaining cause of action, respondents moved for summary judgment, which Supreme Court (Work, J.) granted. Petitioners appeal.

A town may convey an interest in its real property, including an easement, upon adoption of a resolution and a permissive referendum (see Town Law § 64 [2]; 1980 Ops St Comp No. 80-267; see also 29 AD3d at 1056). The process must comply with procedures designed to afford ample notice (see e.g. Town Law §§ 82, 90; Matter of D'Addario v McNab, 32 NY2d 84, 87-88 [1973]). Respondents set forth proof that, among other things, notice of the referendum was timely published in the local newspaper, posted at the town hall and clerk's office, and posted on the signboard in front of the town hall. Respondents established compliance with the applicable statutes and petitioners failed to raise a factual issue indicating otherwise.

Petitioners' assertion that respondents did not adequately define the subject matter of the referendum is without merit. Initially, we note that petitioners have provided no authority to support their apparent contention that a survey or metes and bounds description was necessary prior to the referendum. It is...