Town of Monroe Answer - Municipal Challengers

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ORANGE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS PART
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
VILLAGE OF SOUTH BLOOMING GROVE, et
al.
Petitioners,
Index No. 7410/2015

Proceeding No. 1
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78

of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
- against Hon. Francesca E. Connolly
VILLAGE OF KIRYAS JOEL BOARD OF

TRUSTEES, et al.,
Respondents,
EMANUEL LEONOROVITZ, et al.
Additional Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
PRESERVE HUDSON VALLEY, et al.
Index No. 8118/2015
Proceeding No. 2
Petitioners,
- against
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MONROE, et al.
Respondents/Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
VERIFIED ANSWER TO AMEND VERIFIED PETITION

OF PETITIONERS IN PROCEEDING NO. 1
Respondents-Defendants, Town of Monroe Town Board and Town of
Monroe, (collectively Monroe or the Town) by their
attorneys, DICKOVER. DONNELLY & DONOVAN, LLP, respectfully
submit the foregoing Verified Answer to the Amended Verified

Petition filed by Petitioners Village of South Blooming Grove et
al. in Proceeding No. 1 (the Petition):
1. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of
the Petition, the Town admits that Petitioners seek the relief
specified therein, but denies that Petitioners are entitled
thereto.
2. The Town admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2
of the Petition.
3. With respect to the allegations contained in the first
sentence in Paragraph 3 of the Petition, the Town lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations set forth.
With respect to the
allegations in the second sentence in Paragraph 3, the Town

refers the Court to the documents referenced therein for
determination of their content, meaning and effect and denies
Petitioners characterization thereof.
4. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4
of the Petition, the Town denies that the GEIS failed to take a
hard look at the potential environmental impacts of the
annexation, and otherwise refers the Court to the documents
referenced therein for determination of their content, meaning
and effect and denies Petitioners characterization thereof.
the Petition, the Town refers the Court to the documents

the Petition, the Town
refers the Court to the documents

and effect and denies Petitioners characterization thereof, and
with respect to specific subparagraphs therein states as
follows:
a. With respect to the allegations set forth in the
first sentence of Paragraph 8 (a) of the
Petition, the Town refers the Court to the
documents referenced therein for determination of
their content, meaning and effect and denies
respect to the allegations in the second
With
sentence, the Town states that such allegations

set forth conclusions of law for which no
responsive pleading is required, but to the
extent an answer is made, the Town
refers the
Court to the statutes and/or regulations

referenced therein for determination of their
content, meaning and effect, and denies
Petitioners characterizations thereof.
b. With respect to the allegations set forth in the
first sentence of Paragraph 8 (b) of the
Petition, the Town refers the Court to the
documents referenced therein for determination of
their content, meaning and effect and denies
With
respect to the allegations related to the

dynamics of the Satmar Hasidim population outside
of Kiryas Joel, the Town
lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations, except denies
Petitioners characterization of the Town s
environmental review..
c. With respect to the allegations set forth in
Paragraph 8 (c) of the Petition, the Town refers
the Court to the documents referenced therein for
determination of their content, meaning and

effect and denies Petitioners characterization
thereof.

10. With respect to the allegations set forth in the first
sentence of Paragraph 10 of the Petition, the Town refers the
Court to the documents referenced therein for determination of
their content, meaning and effect and denies Petitioners
characterization thereof.
With respect to allegations referring
to the Town of Monroe Zoning Code, the Town states that such
allegations set forth conclusions of law for which no responsive
pleading is required, but to the extent an answer is made, the
Town refers the Court to the statutes and/or regulations
and effect, and otherwise lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
set forth.
11. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the
Petition, the Town admits that it has proactively planned for
provision of municipal water and sewer services for its
residents, admits that CGR and Chazen provided a report, but

otherwise refers the Court to the documents referenced therein
for determination of their content, meaning and effect and
denies Petitioners characterization thereof.
With respect to
the final sentence in Paragraph 11, the Town states that such
allegations set forth conclusions of law for which no responsive
pleading is required, but to the extent an answer is made, the
Town refers the Court to the statutes and/or regulations
and effect, and denies Petitioners characterizations thereof.
Petition, the Town denies that environmental review for the
annexations was flawed, admits that the Town has obtained a
water withdrawal permit from NYSDEC for a groundwater well in
the Town of Cornwall, and otherwise lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth.
of the Petition, the Town refers the Court to the documents
14. With respect to allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of
the Petition, the Town
denies that it failed to take a hard
look at the potential environmental impacts of the annexation
petitions, and otherwise states that such allegations set forth

conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required,
but to the extent an answer is made, the Town
refers the Court
to the statutes and/or regulations referenced therein for

determination of their content, meaning and effect, and
otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth.
of the Petition, the Town admits that Petitioners seek the
relief specified therein, but denies that Petitioners are
entitled thereto.
of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of South
Blooming Grove is an incorporated Village, admits that South
Blooming Grove adjoins limited portions of the land proposed to
be annexed in the 507 Petition, denies that South Blooming Grove
adjoins land proposed to be annexed in the 164 Petition, and
otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth.
of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Blooming
Grove is Village in Orange County, admits that the Village
adjoins limited portions of the land proposed to be annexed in
the 507 Petition, denies that the Village adjoins land proposed
to be annexed in the 164 Petition, and otherwise lacks knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations set forth.
of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Monroe is
an incorporated Village in Orange County, and otherwise lacks
of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Woodbury is
a Village in Orange County, admits that the Village of Woodbury
both the 507 Petition and 164 Petition, and otherwise lacks
of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Woodbury is
a Village in Orange County, admits that the Village of Woodbury
both the 507 Petition and 164 Petition, and otherwise lacks
of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Harriman is
a Village in Orange County, and otherwise lacks knowledge or

of the Petition, the Town admits that the Village of Cornwallon-Hudson is a Village in Orange County, admits that the Village
has obtained a water withdrawal permit from the NYSDEC for a
well in Mountainville and that it is legally entitled to connect
to the New York City Aqueduct, and otherwise lacks knowledge or
of the Petition, the Town admits that the Town of Cornwall is a
Town in Orange County, admits that the Village has obtained a
water withdrawal permit from the NYSDEC for a well in
Mountainville and that it is legally entitled to connect to the
New York City Aqueduct, and otherwise lacks knowledge or
of the Petition, the Town admits that the County of Orange is a
County in New York State, admits that the proposed annexation
territories are located in Orange County, denies that the Town
seeks to annex territories, and otherwise lacks knowledge or

of the Petition, the Town admits that the Town of Chester is a
Town in Orange County, and otherwise lacks knowledge or
of the Petition, the Town
admits that the Monroe Joint Fire
District exists, except lacks knowledge or information

set forth regarding its status under New York law or its
organizational history,
admits that the MJFDs service area
presently includes land proposed to be annexed, admits that the

MJFD has in the past responded to fires within the Town
pursuant to requests for mutual aid, and otherwise lacks
of the Petition, the Town lacks knowledge or information
set forth, except with respect to allegations concerning the
GEIS, refers the Court to the documents referenced therein for

of the Petition.
of the Petition.
30. With respect to the allegations set forth in the first
sentence of Paragraph 30 of the Petition, the Town admits the
allegations.
With respect to the allegations in the second and
third sentences, the Town refers the Court to the documents

With respect to the final sentence, the Town admits that the
Town Board approved the 164 Petition but not the 507 Petition.
of the Petition.
of the Petition, the allegations set forth conclusions of law
for which no responsive pleading is required, but to the extent
an answer is made, the Town refers the Court to the statutes
and/or regulations referenced therein for determination of their
content, meaning and effect, and denies Petitioners

of the Petition, the Town admits that its principal offices are
in Orange County, and otherwise states that the allegations set
forth conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is
required, but to the extent an answer is made, the Town
refers
the Court to the statutes and/or regulations referenced therein

for determination of their content, meaning and effect, and
denies Petitioners characterization thereof.
Petition, the Town lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth.
of the Petition as they relate to the 507-acre annexation.

of the Petition, the Town admits that comments were submitted on
the DGEIS, and otherwise refers the Court to the documents
of the Petition, the Town admits that the Town of Monroes
consultant JMC submitted comments on the DGEIS, and otherwise
of the Petition, the Town admits that the Town of Monroes
consultant JMC submitted comments on the FGEIS, and otherwise

of the Petition.

and effect and denies Petitioners characterization thereof. .
ANSWERING THE FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

46. With respect to the allegations incorporated by reference
in Paragraph 46 of the Petition, the Town refers to its
responses to those allegations set forth above.
of the Petition, including subparagraphs (a) through (d), the
Town refers the Court to the documents referenced therein for
determination of their content, meaning and effect and otherwise
lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations set forth.
and effect and otherwise lacks knowledge or information
set forth.
set forth.

54. The Town denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 54
of the Petition.
set forth.
of the Petition.

of the Petition, including Footnote 9 thereto, the Town refers
the Court to the documents referenced therein for determination
of their content, meaning and effect and denies Petitioners
62.
With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph
62 of the Petition, the Town refers the Court to the documents


of the Petition, including the subparagraphs thereto, the Town

and effect and denies Petitioners characterization thereof and
further states the allegations set forth conclusions of law for
which no responsive pleading is required, but to the extent an
answer is made, the Town
refers the Court to the statutes


of the Petition, including the subparagraphs thereto, the Town
of the Petition, the Town denies that the environmental review
failed to take a hard look as required under SEQRA and otherwise

ANSWERING THE SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF


set forth.
set forth.

of the Petition.
set forth.
of the Petition.
of the Petition, the Town admits the allegations in the first
and second sentences, but denies the allegations in the third
sentence that these documents are materially inconsistent. With
respect to the allegations set forth in subparagraphs (a)
through (c) of Paragraph 88 of the Petition, the Town refers the
Court to the documents referenced therein for determination of
their content, meaning and effect and denies Petitioners
of the Petition, including subparagraphs (a) through (c)
thereto, the Town refers the Court to the documents referenced
therein for determination of their content, meaning and effect

and denies Petitioners characterization thereof.
set forth.
of the Petition.
ANSWERING THE THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

of the Petition.
100. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph
100 of the Petition, the allegations set forth conclusions of
law for which no responsive pleading is required, but to the
extent an answer is made, the Town refers the Court to the
statutes and/or regulations referenced therein for determination
of their content, meaning and effect, and denies Petitioners
101. The Town denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph
101 of the Petition.
ANSWERING THE FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

103. The Town admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph

107. The Town denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph
108. The Town denies all other allegations of the Petition not
specifically admitted herein.
AS AND FOR A FIRST OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

109. Petitioners claims are barred, in whole or in part, by
Petitioners failure to exhaust their administrative remedies.
AS AND FOR A SECOND OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

110. Petitioners lack standing to assert the claims set forth
in the verified petition.
AS AND FOR A THIRD OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

111. Petitioners claims are barred, in whole or in part, by
their failure to comply with CPLR 5015.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

112. Petitioners lack capacity to assert the claims set forth
in the verified petition and compliant.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

113. Upon information and belief, Petitioners fail to obtain
legislative authorization by properly adopted resolution to
commence this proceeding and the proceeding should, therefore,
be dismissed.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

114. The Petition fails to state a claim or cause of action
upon which relief can be granted.
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this

Court enter a judgment dismissing the verified petition in its
entirety, awarding it the costs, disbursements and attorneys

fees incurred in this proceeding and awarding it such other
relief as this Court shall deem just, proper or equitable.
Dated:
January 22, 2016

Goshen, New York.
______________________
Michael H. Donnelly
DICKOVER. DONNELLY & DONOVAN, LLP

Attorneys for Town of Monroe Town Board
and Town of Monroe
28 Bruen Place PO Box 610
Goshen, New York 10924
(845) 294-9447
O:\MHD\Municipal\T-Monroe\KJ Annexation\164 Pleadings\Answer - Municipalites.docx
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ORANGE
:
:ss.:
:
HARLEY DOLES being duly sworn, deposes and says that:

I am one of the Supervisor for the Town of Monroe, one of
the respondents/defendants in the within proceeding; I have read
the annexed Answer, know the contents thereof and the same are
true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are
stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to
those matters, I believe them to be true.
____________________________
HARLEY DOLES
Sworn to before me this
______ day of January, 2016.
____________________________
MICHAEL H. DONNELLY
Notary Public, State of New York
Qualified in Orange County
Commission Expires on July 12, 2014

Town of Monroe Answer - Municipal Challengers

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Town of Monroe Answer - Municipal Challengers

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Index No. 7410/2015

For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78

VILLAGE OF KIRYAS JOEL BOARD OF

VERIFIED ANSWER TO AMEND VERIFIED PETITION

submit the foregoing Verified Answer to the Amended Verified

With respect to the

allegations in the second sentence in Paragraph 3, the Town

the Petition, the Town refers the Court to the documents

refers the Court to the documents

referenced therein for determination of their content, meaning

sentence, the Town states that such allegations

Court to the statutes and/or regulations

respect to the allegations related to the

information sufficient to form a belief as to the

determination of their content, meaning and

9. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of

With respect to allegations referring

residents, admits that CGR and Chazen provided a report, but

denies that it failed to take a hard

look at the potential environmental impacts of the annexation

petitions, and otherwise states that such allegations set forth

refers the Court

to the statutes and/or regulations referenced therein for

to be annexed in the 164 Petition, and otherwise lacks knowledge

a Village in Orange County, and otherwise lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

admits that the Monroe Joint Fire

District exists, except lacks knowledge or information

admits that the MJFDs service area

presently includes land proposed to be annexed, admits that the

Petitioners characterization thereof.

With respect to the allegations in the second and

third sentences, the Town refers the Court to the documents

content, meaning and effect, and denies Petitioners

the Court to the statutes and/or regulations referenced therein

of the Petition, the Town refers the Court to the documents

44. The Town admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 44

refers the Court to the documents

referenced therein for determination of their content, meaning

ANSWERING THE FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

53. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 53

60. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 60

With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph

62 of the Petition, the Town refers the Court to the documents

and effect and denies Petitioners characterization thereof.

refers the Court to the documents

referenced therein for determination of their content, meaning

refers the Court to the statutes

and/or regulations referenced therein for determination of their

70. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 70

referenced therein for determination of their content, meaning

ANSWERING THE SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

referenced therein for determination of their content, meaning

84. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 84

therein for determination of their content, meaning and effect

ANSWERING THE THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

ANSWERING THE FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

105. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph

AS AND FOR A FIRST OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

AS AND FOR A SECOND OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

AS AND FOR A THIRD OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

AS AND FOR A FOURTH OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW

AS AND FOR A FIFTH OBJECTION IN PONT OF LAW