Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LLC v. Town of Southampton

United States District Court, E.D. New York

August 19, 2014

545 HALSEY LANE PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON; TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD; DENNIS FINNERTY; JOHN BLANEY; GEORGE SKIDMORE; LARRY TOLER; JOHN ZUCCARELLI; JACQUELINE LOFARO; PHILIP A. KEITH; MICHELE BERKOSKI, in her capacity as a Co-Executor of the Estate of William A. Berkoski, Jr.; JENNIFER L. CARUSO, in her capacity as a Co-Executor of the Estate of William A. Berkoski, Jr.; ROMAN ROTH; THOMAS CONKLIN; WARREN TOPPING (a.k.a JAEGGER TOPPING); ADAM HALSEY; LEE FOSTER; JOHN L. HALSEY; LAWRENCE HALSEY; HENRY KRASZEWSKI; JAMES PIKE; KATHERINE KAZANAS; ANTHONY PIAZZA; ARTHUR LUDLOW; KENNETH TILLOTSON; MICHAEL WESNOFSKE; SUSAN FALKOWSKI PARRY; and JOHN and JANE DOES Nos. 1-6, Defendants

Page 327

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 328

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 329

For the Plaintiff: David Samuel Julian Neufeld, Esq., Denis P. O'Leary, Esq., Of Counsel, Neufeld & O'Leary, New York, NY.

For the Defendants: David H. Arnsten, Esq., Of Counsel, Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, NY.

Page 330

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

ARTHUR D. SPATT, United States District Judge.

On February 6, 2014, the Plaintiff 545 Halsey Lane Properties, LLC (the " Plaintiff" ) commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging two decisions by the Defendant Southampton Town Planning Board (the " Planning Board" ) involving conditional approvals of the Plaintiff's applications for a building permit for the construction of a barn and/or barns on its property.

On April 3, 2014, the Defendants moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (" Fed. R. Civ. P." ) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to

Page 331

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Unless stated otherwise, the following facts are drawn from the complaint and construed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Plaintiff.

A. The Parties

The Plaintiff is a New York limited liability company.

The Defendant Town of Southampton (the " Town of Southampton" ) is a municipal corporation.

The Planning Board is a Board created by the Board of Southampton pursuant to New York Town Law § 271.

The Defendant Dennis Finnerty (" Finnerty" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member and Chairperson of the Planning Board at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant John Blaney (" Blaney" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member and Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant George Skidmore (" Skidmore" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the Planning Board at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Larry Toler (" Toler" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the Planning Board at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant John Zuccarelli (" Zuccarelli" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the Planning Board at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Philip A. Keith (" Keith" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the Planning Board at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Michele Berkoski, sued in her capacity as an Executor of the Estate of William A. Berkoski, Jr., having been issued Letters Testamentary by the Surrogate's Court of the County of Suffolk on or about May 12, 2011, is sued herein on account of the individual actions of William A. Berkoski, Jr. (" Berkoski" ), who was a member of the Planning Board at the relevant times herein prior to his death on or about March 15, 2011.

The Defendant Jennifer L. Caruso, sued in her capacity as an Executor of the Estate of Berkoski, having been issued Letters Testamentary by the Surrogate's Court of the County of Suffolk on or about May 12, 2011, is sued herein on account of the individual actions of Berkoski.

The Defendant Roman Roth (" Roth" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the Town of Southampton's Agricultural Advisory Committee (the " AAC" ) at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Thomas Conklin (" Conklin" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Warren Topping, also known as Jaegger Topping (" Topping" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Adam Halsey (" A. Halsey" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Lee Foster (" Foster" ), sued in her individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant John L. Halsey (" J. Halsey" ), sued in his individual capacity, is

Page 332

and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Lawrence Halsey (" L. Halsey" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Henry Kraszewski (" Kraszewski" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant James Pike (" Pike" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Katherine Kazanas (" Kazanas" ), sued in her individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Anthony Piazza (" Piazza" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Arthur Ludlow (" Ludlow" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Kenneth Tillotson (" Tillotson" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Michael Wesnofske (" Wesnofske" ), sued in his individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendant Susan Falkowski Parry (" Parry" ), sued in her individual capacity, is and/or was a member of the AAC at the relevant times herein.

The Defendants John and Jane Doe Nos. 1 through 6 are presently unknown individuals or entities who may be liable to the Plaintiff.

B. Factual Background

By deed dated February 26, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased a 40.747 acre parcel of property located in the Town of Southampton, known as Suffolk County Tax Map No. 900-105.000-0001-001.030 (the " Property" ). The purchase price remitted by or on behalf of the Plaintiff for the Property was $15,150,000.

The Property is identified on a subdivision map known as the Map of Broadlands, approved by the Planning Board on July 3, 1980, and filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on August 29, 1980, as Map No. 6930. All or part of the Property had been utilized as agricultural farmland since prior to the establishment of the Broadlands Subdivision.

In 1980, the prior owners of the Property, Raymond G. Wesnofske and Leonard Schulman (the " Grantors" ), entered into an agreement with the Town pursuant to New York General Municipal Law § 247 tat imposed certain understandings and agreements concerning the use of the Property.

The aforesaid agreement was memorialized within a Grant (the " Grant" ) which, following a public hearing, was authorized by the Town Board by Resolution dated August 16, 1980. The Grant, filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, expressly reserved to the Grantors and their " successors, heirs, legal representatives, and assigns" numerous property rights, including future uses of, and rights to make improvements on, the Property. The Plaintiff is a successor in title and interest to the Grantors.

Under the terms of the Grant, in consideration for the subdivision and aforementioned easement rights, the Grantors expressly retained and reserved for themselves and their successors the right to utilize the Property for " some or all" of the following uses:

Page 333

1. farming operations and activities, including soil preparation, cultivation, fertilization, irrigation, pest control, water and drainage control, farm buildings, all other normal and customary farming operations and the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.