Greenberg v. Veteran Reply Affidavit

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In the Matter of the Application of 
MYLES GREENBERG and FRANCES M. MULLIGAN,

Petitioners,
-against-

ANTHONY F. VETERAN, et al..
Respondents.

89 Civ. 0591 (GLG) 
REPLY AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF NEW YORK )) ss.:
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER )

PAUL J. PETRETTI, P.E., L.S., being sworn, states:
1. I am a licensed professional engineer and a 

licensed professional land surveyor in the State of New York. 
My office is at 30 Gould Avenue, Dobbs Ferry, New York. I 
submit this reply affidavit in support of respondents' motion 
to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment.

2. I have reviewed the description of the proposed 
Village of Mayfair Knollwood, as well as the statement of 
Larry J. Nardecchia, Jr. regarding the description, and the 
affidavit of Donald J. DeBerardinis submitted on this motion.
I understand that the nature of the motion does not lend 
itself to a point-by-point response to petitioners' opposing 
papers. Accordingly, I will simply set out background facts 
and terminology that I believe will be of assistance to the 
Court in considering this motion.



intended description. For this reason, a mixed descriptive 
system with one problem lacks common certainty.

7. The Mayfair Knollwood incorporation descrip­
tion does, indeed, alternate between metes and bounds and 
filed map references. Thus, forced closure is not possible.

8. Third, one part of the Mayfair Knollwood
description describes "a curve to the right with a radius of
731.0 feet, a central angle of 4° 21' 09" a distance of 55.53
feet to a point." (Boundary Description, p. 15, line 12)
Both sides agree —  and I concur —  that the curve data given 
is mathematically inconsistent. In their opposing papers, 
petitioners assume that the central angle measurement is 
incorrect, and they would use the other two components to try 
to "back into" the intended central angle. (DeBerardinis 
Aff. 1 9[1])

9. The mathematical inconsistency here, however, 
is gross. My analysis suggests that there may be an error in 
more than one of the components in the description. Accord­
ingly, a reconciliation is not possible by a technique of 
backing into the curve. As a result of the inconsistency, 
the end point of the curve cannot be established. All 
subsequent courses and distances are affected by the error 
and are therefore uncertain.

10. At other points in the description, movement 
along the division line between the Town of Mount Pleasant

4



and the Town of Greenburgh, "generally parallel" to identi­
fied courses and distances, is set forth. (Boundary Descript­
ion, p. 17, 11. 19, 29) "Generally parallel" is not a 
recognized surveying term. Even Mr. DeBerardinis does not 
claim familiarity with the term, although he does not try to 
interpret its intended meaning here. (DeBerardinis Aff.
UK 9[o] & [p]) The use of the term in the context of this 
particular part of the description only adds to the uncertainty.

11. Finally, the last page of the boundary descrip­
tion cannot fairly be called a "description" at all under 
recognized surveying practice. (Boundary Description, p. 19)
It is simply a series of instructions to the reader to obtain 
several filed maps in order to complete the description. It 
is not enough to say, as Mr. DeBerardinis does, that the maps 
themselves are accurate. (DeBerardinis Aff. K 9[r]) It 
appears to me that whoever assembled this description ran out 
of steam and opted for a shortcut instead of properly calling 
out the courses and distances on the maps. All this only 
adds to the uncertainty of the description.

12. As noted earlier, I have not tried to critique 
the entire Mayfair Knollwood description. However, on the 
basis of the matters set forth above, in my professional

5



opinion, the description does not set forth the boundaries of 
the proposed village with common certainty.

Paul J. Petretti, P.E., L.S.

Sworn to before me this 
day of February 1990

ANNE B PSOtA
Noury Public. State of N e w * * *

No 4875594
Qualified in Westchester County 

Commission Expires December 15,

6