Meadow E. Assocs. LP v. Vill. of Potsdam
| Decision Date | 22 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 533934 |
| Citation | 211 A.D.3d 1373,181 N.Y.S.3d 353 |
| Parties | MEADOW EAST ASSOCIATES LP et al., Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF POTSDAM et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
211 A.D.3d 1373
181 N.Y.S.3d 353
MEADOW EAST ASSOCIATES LP et al., Appellants,
v.
VILLAGE OF POTSDAM et al., Respondents.
533934
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: November 16, 2022
Decided and Entered: December 22, 2022
Tabner, Ryan & Keniry, LLP, Albany (William F. Ryan Jr. of counsel) and Antonucci Law Firm LLP, Watertown (David P. Antonucci of counsel), for appellants.
Law Firm of Frank W. Miller, PLLC, East Syracuse (Giancarlo Facciponte of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McShan, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mary M. Farley, J.), entered August 3, 2021 in St. Lawrence County, which, among other things, declared that Village of Potsdam Local Laws Nos. 6–2017 and 7–2017 are constitutional.
Plaintiffs own various residential rental properties in the Village of Potsdam, St. Lawrence County. As relevant here, defendant
Village of Potsdam provides sewer and water utility services to the properties and plaintiffs are responsible for the payments for these utility services. At issue in this proceeding is the enactment of Village of Potsdam Local Laws Nos. 6–2017 and 7–2017 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Local Laws) which revised the manner in which the Village assessed rates for water and sewer rents. Prior to the enactment of the subject Local Laws in 2018, the Village water and sewer rates were assessed primarily on customer usage, which resulted in insufficient revenue being generated for fixed costs related to the operation and maintenance of the water and sewer systems. The resulting budget shortfalls prompted the Village to commission a study of its water and sewer rates, for which it retained the Development Authority of the North Country (hereinafter DANC) – an agency that contracts with municipalities to study, analyze and make recommendations for the delivery of essential services.
Following the submission of a report from DANC and a public hearing, the Village enacted the laws, which, in sum and substance, established a scale of annual charges for sewer and water rents on properties within the Village, including those owned by plaintiffs. The annual charges consisted of three components including, as relevant here, a newly implemented billing system that assigns the number of billing units per customer based on "Equivalent Dwelling Units" (hereinafter EDU). Under the Local Laws, EDUs were assigned based upon the category of property subject to the laws. The Local Laws assigned different EDU values to residential properties based upon a comparison to water and sewer usage generated by a single-family home. Relevant to this appeal, apartment buildings were assigned an EDU value of one per apartment unit, similar to a single-family home.
Plaintiffs thereafter commenced the instant action as a combined proceeding pursuant
to CPLR article 78 and an action for declaratory judgment (see CPLR 3001 ). Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Local Laws are discriminatory and unconstitutional. Following joinder of issue and the submission of a reply affidavit from plaintiffs, Supreme Court, having received no requests from the parties for discovery or oral argument, decided the matter on the parties’ submissions. Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs’ claims challenging the constitutionality of the Local Laws could not be brought under a CPLR article 78 challenge and dismissed that part of the proceeding. Further, the court declared that the Local Laws satisfy the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the
U.S. and N.Y. Constitutions and dismissed the remainder of the action. Plaintiffs appeal.
On this appeal, plaintiffs limit their challenge to that part of Supreme Court's judgment dismissing their constitutional challenges to the Local Laws.1 "A local law is entitled to an exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality that may be rebutted only by establishing its unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt" ( Matter of Gabrielli v. Town of New Paltz, 116 A.D.3d 1315, 1318–1319, 984 N.Y.S.2d 468 [3d Dept. 2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "For purposes of equal protection review, a legislative classification, such as the one at bar, that neither makes distinctions on the basis of a suspect class nor impairs a fundamental right, must be upheld if the challenged classification is rationally related to achievement of a legitimate state purpose" ( Korotun v. Incorporated Vil. of Bayville, 26 A.D.3d 311, 313, 809 N.Y.S.2d 533 [2d Dept. 2006] [citations omitted], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 701, 818 N.Y.S.2d 191, 850 N.E.2d 1166 [2006] ; see New York State United Teachers v. State of New York, 140 A.D.3d 90, 97, 31 N.Y.S.3d 618 [3d Dept. 2016], appeal dismissed 28 N.Y.3d 978, 39 N.Y.S.3d 852, 62 N.E.3d 564 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 915, 2017 WL 581847 [2017] ). "In determining whether a reasonable objective is promoted by the classification, the courts are not bound by the stated purpose of the [legislation]. Instead, a classification must be upheld against an equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification" ( Korotun v. Incorporated Vil. of Bayville, 26 A.D.3d at 313, 809 N.Y.S.2d 533 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Archer v. Town of N. Greenbush, 80 A.D.2d 361, 363, 439 N.Y.S.2d 729 [3d Dept. 1981] ).
At the outset, plaintiffs make clear that their contentions do not extend to whether the Village was authorized to enact a billing model for its water and sewer services that assigned EDU values to different properties, nor do they contend that the Local Laws exceed the statutory authority for enactment pursuant to General Municipal Law § 452 or Village Law § 11–1118. Rather, plaintiffs’ contentions are limited to the manner in which the Village assigns EDU values to apartments as opposed to other property types. In this respect, plaintiffs contend that the Local Laws improperly classify apartments in the same manner as
single-family homes rather than other types of...
To continue reading
Request your trial