Joel v. Vill. of Woodbury

• Decision Date: 20 April 2016
• Docket Number: 2014-04109, Index No. 9655/11.
• Citation: 31 N.Y.S.3d 83,138 A.D.3d 1008,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03005
• Parties: In the Matter of Village of Kiryas JOEL, New York, et al., petitioners/plaintiffs-respondents, v. VILLAGE OF WOODBURY, New York, et al., respondents/defendants-appellants, et al., respondent/defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

138 A.D.3d 1008

31 N.Y.S.3d 83

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03005

In the Matter of Village of Kiryas JOEL, New York, et al., petitioners/plaintiffs-respondents,

v.VILLAGE OF WOODBURY, New York, et al., respondents/defendants-appellants, et al., respondent/defendant.

2014-04109, Index No. 9655/11.

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

April 20, 2016.

Stepanovich Law, PLC, Nanuet, N.Y. (John G. Stepanovich of counsel), for respondents/defendants-appellants.

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany, N.Y. (Michael G. Sterthous and

Robert S. Rosborough IV of counsel), for petitioners/plaintiffs-respondents.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

In a hybrid proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review resolutions adopting the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Woodbury and Local Law Nos. 3 and 4 of 2011 of the Village of Woodbury, and action, among other things, for a judgment declaring that the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Woodbury and Local Law Nos. 3 and 4 of 2011 of the Village of Woodbury are void and unenforceable, the Village of Woodbury, New York, the Village of Woodbury Board of Trustees, the Village of Woodbury Planning Board, and Gary Thomasberger appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Nicolai, J.), dated March 19, 2014, as converted that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the fourth cause of action into one for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action, thereupon denied that branch of the motion, searched the record, and awarded summary judgment to the petitioners/plaintiffs on the fourth cause of action, granted so much of the petition/complaint as sought to annul the resolutions adopting the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Woodbury and Local Law Nos. 3 and 4 of 2011 of the Village of Woodbury on the grounds that the Village of Woodbury Board of Trustees failed to comply with the procedural and substantive mandates of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and General Municipal Law § 239–m, aned the resolutions adopting the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Woodbury and Local Law Nos. 3 and 4 of 2011 of the Village of Woodbury, and declared that the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Woodbury is void and unenforceable, and that certain portions of Local Law Nos. 3 and 4 of 2011 of the Village of Woodbury are void and unenforceable, and, in effect, denied that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3024(b) to strike scandalous and prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in the pleadings.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order and judgment as, in effect, denied that branch of the motion of the Village of Woodbury, New York, the Village of Woodbury Board of Trustees, the Village of Woodbury Planning Board, and Gary Thomasberger which was pursuant to CPLR 3024(b) to strike scandalous and prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in the pleadings is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right therefrom (see CPLR 5701[b][3] ), and leave to appeal has not been granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof searching the record and awarding summary judgment to the petitioners/plaintiffs on the fourth cause of action, (2) by deleting the provisions thereof granting so much of the petition/complaint as sought to annul the resolutions adopting the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Woodbury and Local Law Nos. 3 and 4 of 2011 of the Village of Woodbury on the grounds that the Village of Woodbury Board of Trustees failed to comply with the procedural and substantive mandates of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and General Municipal Law § 239–m, and substituting therefor a provision denying those branches of the petition/complaint and dismissing those portions of the proceeding/action, and (3) by deleting the provisions thereof aning the resolutions adopting the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Woodbury and Local Law Nos. 3 and 4 of 2011 of the Village of Woodbury, and (4) by deleting the provisions thereof declaring that the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Woodbury is void and unenforceable, and that certain portions of Local Law Nos. 3 and 4 of 2011 of the Village of Woodbury are void and unenforceable; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioners/plaintiffs commenced this hybrid proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review resolutions adopting the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Woodbury (hereinafter the Comprehensive Plan) and Local Law Nos. 3 and 4 of 2011 of the Village of Woodbury (hereinafter together the Zoning Amendments), and action, among other things, for a judgment declaring that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Amendments are void and unenforceable. As relevant here, the petition/complaint alleged that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Amendments are void and unenforceable on the ground that the Village of Woodbury Board of Trustees (hereinafter the Board of Trustees) failed to strictly comply with the procedural and substantive mandates of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art. 8; hereinafter SEQRA), and on the ground that the Board of Trustees failed to comply with General Municipal Law § 239–m. The petition/complaint also alleged, in the fourth cause of action, that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Amendments amounted to unconstitutional exclusionary zoning, and sought a judgment declaring that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments are void and unenforceable.

The respondents/defendants Village of Woodbury, New York, the Village of Woodbury Board of Trustees, the Village of Woodbury Planning Board, and Gary Thomasberger (hereinafter collectively the appellants) moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the fourth cause of action. As relevant here, in the order and judgment appealed from, the Supreme Court converted that branch of the motion into one for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action, denied that branch of the motion, searched the record, and awarded summary judgment to the petitioners/plaintiffs on the fourth cause of action. The court also granted so much of the petition/complaint as sought to annul the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Amendments on the ground that the Board of Trustees failed to strictly comply with the procedural and substantive mandates of SEQRA, and on the ground that the Board of Trustees failed to comply with General Municipal Law § 239–m. The court then aned the resolutions adopting the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Amendments, and declared that the Comprehensive Plan is void and unenforceable, and that the Zoning Amendments are void and unenforceable except to the extent that the Zoning Amendments adopted and codified section 310–13 of the Code of the Village of Woodbury. Additionally, the court, in effect, denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3024(b) to strike scandalous and prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in the pleadings.

The Supreme Court erred in granting so much of the petition/complaint as sought to annul the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Amendments on the ground that the Board of Trustees failed to strictly comply with the procedural requirements of SEQRA. “SEQRA mandates literal compliance with its procedural requirements and substantial compliance is insufficient to discharge the responsibility of the agency under the act” ( Matter of East End Prop. Co. # 1, LLC v. Kessel, 46 A.D.3d 817, 820, 851 N.Y.S.2d 565 ). As relevant here, 6 NYCRR 617.6(a)(4) permits an agency to waive the requirement for an environmental assessment form (hereinafter EAF) if a draft environmental impact statement is prepared or submitted. In this case, such a draft environmental impact...