Veteran v. Greenberg Appendix

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Frances Mulligan also acting as defendant. Susan Tolchin serving in her capacity as Town Clerk also acting as plaintiff.

Impact area
- Economic Justice
Topic
- Economic Justice
Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 75404604-c89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Veteran v. Greenberg Appendix, 1989. 75404604-c89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/88f64025-9a4e-48e4-b755-9cb55422d860/veteran-v-greenberg-appendix. Accessed December 04, 2025.

Copied!

89
In The

United States Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit

In re A n t h o n y F. V e t e r a n
and Su s a n T o l c h i n,

Petitioners.

APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Pa u l A g resta
Town Attorney
Town of Greenburgh
P.O. Box 205
Elmsford, New York 10523
(914) 993-1546
Attorney for Petitioners

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Docket Sheet in Matter of Greenberg v. Veteran,

89 CIV• 0591 (GLG) (S.D.N.Y.) *••••••••••••••*••• 1
Notice of Petition, dated December 14, 1988,

with Request for Judicial Intervention .......... 3
Verified Petition, sworn to December 28, 1988 .... 34

Exhibit - Decision of Town Supervisor Veteran,
dated December 1, 1988 ............... ...... 50

Memorandum of Law, dated December 13, 1988 ........ 62
Verified Petition for Removal from State

Court, dated January 25, 1989 ................... 79
Exhibit A - List of Additional Respondents

(Reproduced at Pages 5 to 30, this
Appendix) .................................... 94

Exhibit B - Notice of Petition, Verified
Petition, and Petitioners' Memorandum of
Law (Reproduced at Pages 3, 34, and 62,
respectively of this Appendix) ............. 95

Opinion and Order, dated April 17, 1989
in 89 Civ. 0591 (GLG) (S.D.N.Y.) ................ 96

Notice of Appeal, filed May 11, 1989 .............. 129
Complaint, dated November 1, 1988, in Jones v.

Deutsch, 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG) (S.D.N.Y.) 132
Exhibit 1 - Map of Proposed

Village of Mayfair-Knollwood .................. 155

1
DfV R

23 MAG. COUNTY JURY
DEM.

6698- 36119
DEFENDANTS ^ro\

IVETERArl/ AwlriGNY F., Supervisor
TOLCnTH, SUSAN/ Town Cleric, et al

W3TRJCT , OFF.

0208 07

DOCKET NO.
YR. NUMBER

89 0591

OR
FtUNG DATE

MO. DAY YR.

01 25 89
PLAINTIFFS

GREENBERG, MYLES ana
MULLIGAN, FRANCES f-i.

)
)

]
.i

# )'

Related to 88 CIV. 7738(GLG)
CAUSE

(<?lT f.,T= l U S’ C,V,L STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE CASE 28 'S PILED AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE)za U.S.C. SECT. 144o(b). Removal from State Court.

LOVETT 5 GOrJLD, ESQ.
180 E. Post road
’Unite Plains, N.Y. 106-31
(914; 423-8401

ATTORNEYS ;

PALL AGRESTA, Town Attorney i
P.C. Box 205, Elnsford, NY 10523’
(914) 993-1546

I
:

2
NR

1
2
3
4

PROCEEDINGS

FLD. PETITION UNDER 28 USC SECT. 1446(b) FOR REMOVAL OF ACTION FROM STATE COURT.
Fid. LETTER to Hon. G.L. Goettel from Paul Agresta/ town atty, dated 1/26/83
Fid. AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONAL SERVICE submitted by Ronald Pietrowicz
Fid. NOTICE OF REMOVAL. You are hereby notified that on this date Anthony F.
Veteran, Susan Tolchin, and additional respondents in the above-entitled
proceeding, brought pursu. to New York CPLR Article 78, have filed in the USDC
for the SONY a verified petition for the removal of said proceeding to that Cour:
from the Supreme Court of the STate of New York, Westch. Cty.
Fid. NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES.
Fid. VERIFIED PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF ACTION FROM STATE COURT.

7
8

FLD: CONFERNECE MEMORANDUM OF THE REMOVING RESPONDENTS IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL.
Fid. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL submitted by Paul Agresta, Town Atty of
Town of Greenburgh.
Fid. ADDITIONAL MEMORANDUM OF THE REMOVING RESPONDENTS IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL.

10
11

Fid. NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT of Related case. E/n
Fid. OPINION #89,0006 W.P. See Document. . . .Assuming the general removability o
Article 78 proceedings, the instant matter involves a federal question and may oe
removed pursu. to 28 USC S. 1441(b). Consistent with Ardra Insurance, however, and
because we would abstain from deciding the issues here presented under familiar
jurisprudential considerations, the instate proceeding is remanded to the court
from whence it was removed, the New York Supreme Court for Westch. County.
SO ORDERED: GOETTEL, J., dated 4/17/89 c/m/n.
Fid. NOTICE OF APPEAL. Please take notice that respondents appeal to the USCA for t
2nd Circuit from the order dated 4.17.89 and entered on 04.18.89. Mailed copy to
Paul Agresta, Esq. Town of Greenburgh, P.O. Box 205, Elmsford, NY 10523; Lovett &
Goulc,"l80 E. Post Rd. White Plains, NY; Ruth E. Roth, Esq. 90 Maple Ave., White
Plains, NY 10601; Paul, Weiss, Rifkinc, Wharton & Garrison, 1285 Ave., of the
Americas, NY, NY; FEES PAID;
Forwarded copy of Notice of Appeal to J. Goettel and copy of Notice of Appeal and
docket entries to U.S.C.A. for the 2nd Circuit.

13 Fid. LETTER dated Feb. 10, 1989 to Hon. G.L. Goettel from atty Jonathan Lovett.

3
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ---------------------------------------- x
In the Matter of the Application of
MYLES GREENBERG and FRANCES M.
MULLIGAN, proponents of a
petition to incorporate the
Village of Mayfair Knollwood,

T O W N CLERK
T O W S ' OC C.T TTN'BURGH

\ ELMoFORD. N. Y. _
J • J - — j | ; '3 i i I i
\ 1=3 ^ L=3 l i U L t3

• o 13S8
AV PW
7ic ^ ’Ml,‘?ili2i3i4j5i6

Index No, 88

Petitioners,
NOTICE OF PETITIONFor a Judgment pursuant to CPLR

Article 78,
Judge Assigned: ,

-against- Hon. fUteTprll

ANTHONY F. VETERAN, Supervisor of the
Town of Greenburgh, New York, SUSAN ORAL ARGUMENT
TOLCHIN, Town Clerk of the Town of REQUESTED
Greenburgh, New York, and (See
annexed list of additional Respondents),

Respondents.---------------------------------------- X

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed petition of Myles
Greenberg and Frances M. Mulligan duly verified the otp day of
December 1988, and the exhibit annexed thereto, an application
will be made to the Supreme Court, at an IAS Part, held in and
for the County of Westchester, at the Court-house thereof, 111
Grove Street, White Plains, N.Y., on the 3 0 day of January 1989,
at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as counsel
can be heard, for a judgment inter alia nullifying a December 1,

/1988, decision of the Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, New
York which decision rejected as legally insufficient a petition
for the incoporation of the Village of Mayfair Knollwood,

4
sustaining said petition, awarding reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and disbursements, and such other and further relief as to
the Court seems just and proper.

Dated: White Plains, N.Y.
December 14, 1988

LOVETT & GOULD, ESQS. Attorneys for Petitioners
180 E. Post Road
White Plains, N.Y. 10601
914-428-8401

TO: Anthony F. Veteran
Supervisor, Town of Greenburgh
Susan Tolchin
Clerk, Town of Greenburgh
All purported objectors of record

Hr. Thomas Carnecelia
14 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NT 10523

Ms. Sara C Kaplan
907 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Dorothy Smolian
1701 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Madeline Misuraca
505 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Guild Fetridge
507 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Bernard Blacksberg
39 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Alfred Barbour
Payne Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Edna Y Clark
65 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Fernando Bartley
188 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. William Bartley
188 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

o
Ms. Josephine Pecora
1415 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Josephine Lester
404 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Robert Misuraca, Jr.
505 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Christine Picciano
506 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Naomi Gillard
503 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Janette Kenner
166 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Levi Clark
65 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Annie Allen
155 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Linda Howell
185 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Melvin Kaplan
907 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Helen Perkins
1213 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Robert Misuraca
505 0-d Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Michael Picciano
506 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Benjamin Smolian
1701 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary Williams
179 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Paulette Hinton
158 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Roosevelt Hinton
158 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. William Allen
155 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Jay L Howell
185 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

s, Grade McLee
1 Lawrence Avenue
Imsford, NY 1052 3

-s, Evelyn Dixon
5*North Lawrence Avenue
Imsford, NY 1052 3

lx. Wallace Demond
i North Lawrence Avenue
i'lmsford, NY 10523

Is. Allene Street
L34 Cabot Avenue
ilmsford, NY 10523

Lionne D Jones
118 North Evarts Avefiue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Georgia Williams
248 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Edna Barbour
195 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 1052 3

Ms. Clara Battle
155 N. Lawn Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Jean Tolbert
168 No. Lawn Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Barbara Butler
170 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Barbara McLee
21 Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Murriel Woodson
9 North lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Alfred Barbour
195 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Rebecca Graham
134 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Charlie Crisp
256 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Edward Eller •
262 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Marilyn Lighty
104 N. Lawn Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John Stewart
186 No. Lawn Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Penny Hilliard
155 No. Lawn Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary C Brown
176 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. April McLee
21 Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

St. Clair Woodson
9 North lawrence Avenue _
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Robert Cooper
17 North High Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lilliam Lewis
200 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Eloise Crisp
266 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Harvey R Merritt
22 North Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Virginia Mitchell
93 North Lawn Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

K. Morrison
176 No. Lawn Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Alicia Taylor
26 Maryton Road
White Plains, NY 10603

Mr. Lorenzo P Brown
176 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

7
Mr. Aaron Daniel
175 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Wendy St. Val
175 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Elsi Daniel
175 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Alexandrina Daniel
175 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lola D Hunter
171 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Melvin Dixon
15 North Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Barbara Robinson
23 N. Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Gertrude Gilham
23 N. Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. James Rutledge
13 North High Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Elizabeth Rutledge
13 North High Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Mento Conaway
16 N. Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Gloria Richardson
126 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Thomas L Green
103 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Richard Williams
179 Sears Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Herman Bennett
18 North Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Nellie Bennett
18 North Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Sharon Gilham
23 Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John F Baker
9 High Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Samuel Marable
10 North Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Francis Brooks
134 Winthrop Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Alfred Peterson
141 Winthrop Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mrs. K. Miller
129 Winthrop Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Booker Gamble
122 Winthrop Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Joyann Gamble
122 Winthrop Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Thelma Robinson
103 Winthrop Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Floyd Palmer
151 Winthrop Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ada Palmer
151 Winthrop Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Peggy Maniscalco
159 Winthrop Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Evelyn Roett
153 Winthrop Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

>Mr. Bruce McLee
21 Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Bernadette Brown
176 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lillie Davis
122 North Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Corey Davis
122 North Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Linda Kohn
137 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. James Davis
76 North Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

its. Lola R Skeete
126 No. Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Rhonda Tirfagrehu
128 North Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Rebecca E Rivers
125 No. Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Anthony Lewis
106 No. Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

A.C. Barrett Wright
106 No. Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Joseph Hollis
119 Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Vendell Shaw
121 Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Marie Cassavecca
109 N. Lawn Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Peter Cassavecca
109 N. Lawn Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Ralph McCracken
80 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. David Kohn
Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Iris Campbell
118 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Carlos McClendon
114 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Joe Knight
106 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Sharon Reed
106 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Brenda Funny
101 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ruby McCalla
77 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Henry McCalla
77 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Violet Morris
77 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Leo Morris
77 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Alvis Stewart
77 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Danee' Baskin
89 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

•- . ■»

Clezie Stephens
151 North Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Margaret Hargrove
151 North Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

•
Ms. Jc^elyn Valentine!
130 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

SP5 £

Ms. Shirlee Kennie
130 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. James Hall, Sr.
130 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Ezzard C Sabell
112 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ivy Darling
102 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Ray Hayward
81 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Naomi F Jones
69 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. William H Jones
69 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Kent C Jones
69 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Lester Riley
45 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Mary Ann Spencer
40 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Samuel Washington
95 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. MaryLou Washington
95 Payne Street
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Delrose Jones
165 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Bernice Jamison
137 North Lawn Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Pariz Chitsazan
220 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary E Scott
205 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Fred Scott
205 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John E Moss
289 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Garrett W Conaway
97 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

S . Stephen Funny
101 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lori A Fullenweider
111 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Joan Fullenweider
111 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Frances Middleton
115 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Alexis Edwards
115 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Nathaniel Middleton
115 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

M.E. Baskett
21 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Derek Williams
129 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Richard Lewis
131 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Ruth 0 Sumner
132 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Elizabeth Wright
214 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

10
ms . Joanna Macon
214 Endicott Avenue
Elms ford, NY 10523

Mr. Lawrence Pina
212 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Susie Blanshaw
223 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Clyde Hilliard
225 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Sandy Martin
234 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Jameela R White
259 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Vera Gibbs
248 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Sarah L Smith
293 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ann Bhagirath
253 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

■ Cecile Grasty
227 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John Pina
214 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr.- Alfonso Dixon
203 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Ron Blanshaw
223 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Cassandra Hilliard
225 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

21s. Harriet Burton
255 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Willie J Brooks
267 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary T Lewis
293 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Blonnie Jones
256 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Eddie Pace
278 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Cecil Lazarus
231 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Wanda Macon
214 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

21s. Gail Dixon
203 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

21s. Julia Hilliard
225 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

21s. Elsie 21artin
234 Endicott Avenue
Elmsford, 2TY 13523

Mr. William H White, Jr
259 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

21s. Lina Eller
262 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

21r. Mark Lewis
293 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

21s. Bernice Romeo
253 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Wayne Bass
292 Abbot Avenue
Elmsford, 2JY 10523

Mr. Caryl Lazarus
231 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

11
Ms, Sharon Baylock
11 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Lawrence Baylock
11 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Edna Murrell
225 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Oscar S Jones, Jr.
200 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Helen G Jones
200 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Inell Alston
212 Bryant Avenue
Exmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Levi Alston
212 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary F Martin
208 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Earnest Martin
208 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Frank A DeLorenzo
228 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Carmelita Lazaros
231 Bryant Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Edith Bethea
1 Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Alfred Nisbett
5 Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Phyllis L Nisbett
5 Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Buerina Lampley
7 Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. James Calloway
14 South Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Kathryn E Howard
15 S. Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Marvin K Howard
15 S. Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. James A Edwards
8 Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Cindy L Edwards
8 Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Halcourt Tynes, Jr.
19 Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Montisa Johnson
9 So. Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Clarence Johnson
9 So. Lawrence Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Shirley Cooper
43 Orchard Lane
E.~sford, NY 10523

Mr. Harry Cooper
43 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Herbert 0 Kruger
40 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ruth Roth, Esq.
Cuddy & Feder, Esqs.
90 Maple Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601

Robert Martin Company
100 Clearbrook Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Baker Properties
485 Washington Avenue
Pleasantville, NY 10570

Keren Developments, Inc
Old Saw Mill River R&ad
Tarrytown, NY 10591

'■'vonna D. Jones :ACP „ . ,Shite Plains-Greenburgh
One Prospect Avenue
White Plains, NY 10607

~ .. 1 2 Ms. Judith Reed
21 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. David Davis
21 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Harry Weinick
1402 Old Country Road
Elms ford, NY 10523

Mrs. Harry Weinick
1402 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Board of Managers
Westchester Hills Condom
1800 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Robert Jean
1002 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Jay Auguste
1307 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary Tobias
1401 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Richard Schlesinger
707 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Donna Chambers
1301 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Allen Bender
1302 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Lee Bender
1302 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Sandy Mitchell
1314 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Katherine A Burdick
1314 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Robert J Burdick
1314 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Joyce Eshet
1312 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Raphael Eshet
1312 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Michelle Zappavigna
1214 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. JoAnne Brown
1306 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Eddie Brown
1306 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Patty Dube
1306 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Rose Holton
1317 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Juanita Webb
1318 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

^ • Clifford Webb
1318 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Marilyn Frankel
1218 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Marcia Finsmith
1501 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mark Finsmith
1501 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Reginald Rogers
1511 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Grace W Schuttenberg
1514 Old Country'Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

13
Mr. Igmazio Fazio
1502 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Diane Fazio
1502 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Phyllis Serraino
1515 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Philip Serraino
1515 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Helen G Harper
1517 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Peter G Papineau
1507 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Gerald Newman
1207 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Thomas E Llewellyn
18 Hartsdale Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Maria Schuttenberg
1508 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Susan Schuttenberg
1508 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Erika M Tobias
1401 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Louis Warnick
1402 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Paul Kerlee
1404 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. James Ennis
1413 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lori Anne Ennis
1413 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Dina M Murray
1405 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Walter Murray
1405 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Sarah Lidu
1407 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Pam Pecora
1415 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Urania Messing
1405 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Carolyn Vollrath
1414 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr Joe Follick
704 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Richard Atkins
375 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Amos Fair
376 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary Royster
375 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

C. Hailey
375 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

J. Hailey
376 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

P. Hailey
375 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Debra Brown
376 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. George Harris .% ■
376 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

14
Jix. Richard Royster
376 Saw Ki.ll River Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. James Hays
376 Saw Mill River Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Robert Day
376 Saw Mill River Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Robin Brabham
376 Saw Mill River Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Patricia Miller
376 Saw Mill River Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Vinod K Dhar
706 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Basanti Dhar
706 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. William Picker
708 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Barbara Rissman
708 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Robert J Liggio
709 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Eleanor Liggio
709 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Janine Nicolich
709 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Barbara Jacobs
702 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Irving Jacobs
702 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Robert F Kelly
701 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Katie Koulianos
705 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

T. Pappas
703 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

C . Pappas
703 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

A. Pappas
703 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

C.B. Kelly
701 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Alberta Taylor
1704 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ann Pira
1702 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Sylvia Rivera
1702 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Manfred Klein
1709 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ruth Castore
1703 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Nina Santostasi
1705 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Nick Santostasi
1705 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Marie V Buschel
1707 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Richard Buschel
1707 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Anthony Santostasi
1705 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

15
Ms. Patricia Seacord
1706 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. James Seacord
1706 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Tricia Seacord
1706 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Philip R Johnson
102 Old Country Road
Elms ford, NY 10523

Ms. Shirley Johnson
102 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Thomas Fagan
103 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Cynthia Fagan
103 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Eric Chou
106 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Michelle Chou
106 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Claire Distasio
105 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ethel Distasio
105 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ann Distasio
105 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Victor Fusella
107 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Rita Fusella
107 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lorraine R Fusella
107 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Emily Arceri
109 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Domenick Arceri
109 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. John Coram
108 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms . Estella Thomas
108 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Anthony Blanchard
811 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. E. Blanchard
811 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. Patrick R Blanchard
811 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Oymie H Martin
801 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Mr. William A Martin
801 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523/

Mr. Donald Boyle
814 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Nancy Boyle
814 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Hilde Llewellyn
803 Old Coukfcry Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Nial A Llewellyn
803 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Ms. Patricia Smyth
804 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

Francis Smyth
804 Old Country Road
Eimsford, NY 10523

1 6
Mr. Harvey Kahn
SQ2 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Gilda Penn
812 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Nancy Leeming
818 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Irwin Stahl
818 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Sal Pocoroba
913 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Donna Laino
905 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Louis Laino
905 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Deone Carene
906 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lela Major
908 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Otis Major
908 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Mel Kaplan
907 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Peter T McCauley
915 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Veronica McCauley
915 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John Poniros
917 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary Poniros
917 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Louis Markowitz
912 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Theresa Markowitz
912 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John Halton
1317 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary Auguste
1307 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Diane Halton-Schmid
1308 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Stephen J Schmidt
1308 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Pat Russell
1104 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Rosemary A Collins
1103 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Joyce Kleiman
1006 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Donald Leone
303 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lilliam Leone
903 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ginny Doyle
904 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Danny Doyle
304 old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Leona R Simmons
918 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. JoAnne Ensly
501 Old Country Road-..
Elmsford, NY 10523

17
Ms. Linda Fetridge
507 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Evelyn Cohen
509 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

G. Fetridge
507 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Irving Spiro
1105 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Michael J Madden
1107 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Gerianne Madden
1107 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Tom Kazimir
1108 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Sylvia Kazimir
1108 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Tom Dilworth
1109 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Sharon S Dilworth
1109 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. James Lyons
1201 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Nick Lyons
1201 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lillian Lyons
1201 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Salvatore DeSalo
1202 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Joe Zappagna
1214 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Howard S Pamkin
1212 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Charles White
1211 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lucy Valerio
1416 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ellen Jean
1002 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Kristin Hein
1003 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Maria Lannon
1003 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Dolores J Bartlett
1004 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Stevens Kleimant
1006 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Melvin W Neal
1008 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523 •/

Ms. Joyce D Neal
1008 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Barbara Rose
1101 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Ernest Rose
1101 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Kevin Kennedy
1102 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Candy Kennedy
1102 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Henry. Collins
1103 Old CO'ffntry Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

18
Ms. Caroline Spiro
1105 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Charles Gebbia
1608 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lena Gebbia
1608 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Gary Belkin
1606 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Steve Astone
1615 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Rose Astone
1615 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lynne Tannen
1603 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Lauri Tannen
1603 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Debra Lee
1602 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Thomas Lee
1602 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Carol Lee
1602 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Irene Albonetti
1601 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Al Albonetti
1601 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lisa Kor-Marano
1618 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Richard Marano
1618 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Toni Kakos
1604 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

M. Scherquist
1315 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Jeff Jackson
1315 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

J. Challa
203 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

M. Rozie
206 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

K. Rozie
206 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

N. Desai
204 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Anil Desai
204 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Annie M Robinson
207 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

;/-s • Juanita Thomas
207 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Edward Gansalves
209 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523 — •

Ms. Carol Gansalves
209 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

•;s' Nancy Hnat
604 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Shirley Arcnsin
609 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Donald' Aronsin
609 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

19
Mr. Lawrence Valerio
1416 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Arthur Crawfort
307 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Melissa Lupi
305 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Leonard Wohl
315 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms • Debbie Lupi
318 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Gertrude Brown
317 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

M.B. Moure
304 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Carrie Whittle
301 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Aaron Shapiro
408 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY. 10523

Mr. Anthony Lazzaro
416 Old Country Road
Slmsford, NY 10523

Jean Fabi
1009 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Susan Fabi
1009 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Elayne Crawfort
307 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Daniel Lupi
305 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

J.L. Adamson
306 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Charlotte Bomma
308 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Anita Wohl
316 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Della Bryant
315 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ann Lupi
318 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Donna Lupi
318 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

J.A. Prusak
1216 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Kohi Meinon
303 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Karen Kelly
302 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Jean Sypher
311 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Violet R Leone
313 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. June Nassau
312 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Elisa Shapiro
408 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Joseph Lazrara
♦17 Old:Country Road
Elmsford*—*® 10523

Ms. Madana F Cartaina
418 Old Country
Elmsford, NY 10523

Louisa M Cartaina
418 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY, 10523m -

*t*

20
jtr. Ernest P Beremann
414 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Patricia Cowles
411 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. George Cowles
411 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Xr. Martin Abramowitz
413 "Id Country Road
Elmsiord, NY 10523

Ms. carol Abramowitz
413 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Michael L Schwartzman
415 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

H. Weinfeld
406 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Helen Rose
1616 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Ned Rose
1616 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Kenneth Kakos
1604 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Anne Nancy Kupersmith
1604 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John Tuttle
1614 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Suzanne Fedeyko
1605 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Anna Mangini
1605 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Marilyn Molloy
1612 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John P Forman
405 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Charles D Jefferson
401 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Agnes Jefferson
401 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Maryann Gromisch
403 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Noel C Buckle
412 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Shirley Irvine
1708 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

• G. Moore
Saw Mill River Road

Elmsford, NY 10523

M.E. Gromisch
403 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Carol Newman
1207 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Stacey Irvine
1708 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mrs. G. Moore
376 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Charles Lester
404 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Viola Stefani
101 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Cathy Tobias
1401 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. David Carter'-
376 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

21
Ms. Martha Kennie
376 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Patricia Thomas
376 Saw Mill- River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Beth Stauffer
1401 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Tom Carnevalla
1417 Old Country Road
Elms ford, NY 10523

Ms. Rosemarie Carnevalla
1417 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Jack Astley
1418 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary Astley
1418 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Stephen Winston
806 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Malcolm McRae
808 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

W. Corker
813 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Rich Ciocca
815 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Melissa Ciocca
815 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Aaron Slavin
817 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Estelle Slavin
817 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Raymond Schuttenberg
1508 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Steve Rabinaw
1504 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Jane P Rabinaw
1504 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Judith Shannon
8 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Manny Klein
1709 Old Country Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ella Preiser
23 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John Apicelli
3 Westward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Barbara Apicelli
3 Westward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Dominick Campagna
1 Westward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Loretta Campagna
1 Westward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Marge Arone
4 Westward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

R.L. Arone
4 Westward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Marguerite C Arone
4 Westward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Kathleen McDonnell
6 Westward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Laura LiMarzi
300 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Peter LiMarzi
300 Saw Mill River Road
Elmsford, NY 10523 *•

,vr, Roy Carmen
]5 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Valalla
25 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Andrew Preiser
23 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Diane M Serra
6 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ethel Lagana
5 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

D. Montagnoli
11 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Barbara Zachensky
15 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Bobbi Zachensky
15 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. William F Rice
24 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Harold Brennan
22 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Albert Carmen
IS Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

W. Kirkstadt
29 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Josephine Serra
6 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Carmelina Douai
7 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

G. Montagnoli
11 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

J . Tatta
13 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Stephen Zachensky
15 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Marie Pasquel
26 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Olive P Loftus
24 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lisa Arceri
10 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Carolyn Griffithe
17 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. William Preiser
23 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Joe Douai
7 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

W. Montagnoli
11 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Roseann Variano
19 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Marima Zachensky
15 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Olive P Rice
24 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Domenica Brennan
22 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523 • .

Mr. Gregory Arceri
10 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Judy Weis
19 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Raymond Shannon
8 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Tim Puff
3 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. William Cassese
2 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Charles Reynolds
3 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Eve S Allen
6 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lisa Ann Palmieri
1 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Linda M Reynolds
3 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. James Hornby
8 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Thomas Calandrucci
9 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Stephen Weis
18 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Evelyn P Lathrop
5 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Brian Puff
3 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Vincent J Iaconis
4 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Margaret Reynolds
3 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary Joyce Carroll
2 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John Puff
3 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Laurie A Smith
5 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Carole Calandrucci
9 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Claire Gulkis
6 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Nicole Weis
18 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Amos W Lathrop
5 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Adrienne Cassese
2 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Michele Iaconis
4 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Sigrio Allen
6 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Vincent J Carroll
2 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John Reynolds
3 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. George R Smith
5 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Kimberly Calandrucc
9 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John J Puff
3 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

24
ms. Helen Puff
3 Leaf Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Linda Hornby
8 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Brenda Horecky
1 Acqueduct Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Hr. Scott Horecky
1 Acqueduct Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Stephen Horecky
1 Acqueduct Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Ed Thompson
5 Acqueduct Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mary Thompson
5 Acqueduct Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Lorraine Koleda
6 Acqueduct Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Donald J Rizzo
11 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Beverly McLean
4 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. William McLean
4 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Joseph R Carlucci
3 Acqueduct Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John T Bock
9 Hillview Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Theresa S Bock
9 Hillview Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Maria del Carmen Sanchez
7 Hillview Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Andres Sanchez
1 Hillview Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. John Twohig
8 Hillview Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Grace Carlucci
3 Acqueduct Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Dominick Carlucci
3 Acqueduct Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Rosamond Wynn
8 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms . Ida Lengyel
12 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Harold Maxwell
99 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Todd Maxwell
49 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Alice Maxwell
49 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Jane Elber
17 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Dennis Elber
17 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Thomas Burns
6 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Roger Burns
0 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Edith Burns
6 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Charles K Rohl
2 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

25
Ms. Caroline G Rohl
2 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Diane Rizzo
11 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Margaret E Kruger
40 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Madelyn Mancinelli
42 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Louis R DePalo
47 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Bette L DePalo
47 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Denise DePalo
47 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Rocky DePalo
47 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Cynthea R Blacksberg
39 Bever Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Christopher Pados
35 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Maria Pados
35 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Stephen Pados
35 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Maryjane Chambal
6 Hillview Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Joyce Greenwood
4 Hillview Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Joseph E Chambal
6 Hillview Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Stephen Weis, Jr.
18 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

V .T . Moody
20 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Ann Moody
20 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Steve Brennan
8 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Mark Jurcic
8 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Joanne Chiocchi
14 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Gordon Meredith
14 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Nick Tarzia
12 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Anna Tarzia
12 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Mazie Mancinelli
16 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Pam Dudley
20 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Claire S Twohig
8 Hillview Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

•

Ms. Giovanna Maxwell
13 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Harold Maxwell
13 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

• *. » ■ •
Ms. Janice. Pazienza
48 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523 '

fir. Alfred Pazienza
48 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Amelia Shurak
15 Catskill Place
Elms ford, NY 10523

Ms. Valerie J Mahoney
36 Beaver Hill Road
Elms ford, NY 1052 3

Mr. Kenneth M Venezia
38 Beaver Hill Road
Elms ford, NY 1052 3

Mr. John H August
34 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Kevin Morgan
1 Hillview Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Charles D Chase
28 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Margaret McGilligan
29 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms R o sar ia Marano
^ Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

M-1' Ralph Guar no
7 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Mike Pazienza
48 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Elda San Marco
3 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Frank J Venezia
38 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Msa. Arlene Napurski
44 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Arlene August
34 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Istvan Pados
35 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Dorothea D Chase
28 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Patricia Flynn
39 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Alberto J Pakozde
47 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Rose Guarno
7 Eastward Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Robert J Koleda
6 Acqueduct Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Vincent San Marco
3 Catskill Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Pearl Venezia
38 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Robert Napurski
44 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Michael C Resta
50 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Nancy Morgan
1 Hillview Place
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Eileen Fungiello
32 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Leonardo Marano
45 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Gary Michell
49 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Cecil Scantlebury
133 Augustine Road
White Plains, NY 10603

Ms. Jameela Adams White
259 Abbott Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Anita Jordan
290 Tarrytown Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Anna Ramos
123 East Post Road
White Plains, NY 10601

Gabriel Ramos
123 East Post Road
White Plains, NY 10601

Mr. Thomas Myers, Jr.
290 Tarrytown Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Odell A Jones
19 Van Buren Place
White Plains, NY 10603

National Coalition for
the Homeless
c/o Pauli Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison
1285 Ave. of the America
New York, NY 10019
Mr. Francis Y Sogi
1 Payne Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Larry J Nardecchia
21 McKinley Place
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. Daniel J Kraus
1 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

27
Cameron Clark, Esq.
Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison
1285 Ave. of the America
New York, NY 10019
Ms. April Jordan
290 Tarrytown Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Lisette Ramos
123 East Post Road
White Plains, NY 10601

Mr. Thomas Myers
290 Tarrytown Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Linda Myers
290 Tarrytown Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Geri Bacon
16 Adams Place
White Plains, NY 10603

Mr. Luvaghn Brown
66 Old Tarrytown Road
White Plains, NY 10607

Mr. Franklin R Kaiman
18 Barclay Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583

Ms. Jean S Huff
31 Balmoral Crescent
White Plains, NY 10607

Ms. Elaine C Kraus
1 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Yvonne Jones
118 N. Evarts Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Latoya Jordan
290 Tarrytown Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Vanessa Ramos
123 East Post Road
White Plains, NY 10601

Ms. Lisa Myers
290 Tarrytown Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. Shawn Myers
290 Tarrytown Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. James Hodges
51 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Sarah M Sogi
1 Payne Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Mr. William G Hillman
7-12 Granada Crescent
White Plains, NY 10603

Mr. Daniel J Kraus
President
Sharon Farms Civic Assoc
1 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10S02
Mr. Paul Haber
77 Secor Road
Ardsley, NY 10502

ys Wendy Whittle-Haber
T, Secor Road
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Deborah Boddato
5 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. Gary S Roboff
1 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Karen Rios
11 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Suresa Shah
17 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. Bruce Schwartz
16 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. Manuel Fragoso
20 Melissa Court
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. David Taweel
19 M elissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Harol M Pesuit
10 M elissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Shari Melomed
Melissa Drive

•Ardsley, ny 10502

28Mr. Greg Farrington
3 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. Robert Boddato
5 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Roni Danziger
9 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Jerry Levine
15 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. Shoken Sabe Shah
17 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. Albert San Fillippo
18 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Marie Fragoso
20 Melissa Court
Ardsley, NY 10502

Dr. Smital Pasricha
14 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. John T Pesuit
10 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Susan Shapiro
3 Benjamin Court
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Allison Farrington
3 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Farron Roboff
7 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. Vincent J Rios
11 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Phyllis Levine
15 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms Andrea Weiss
16 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Ellen San Fillippo
18 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Elaine Taweel
19 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Dr. Vijay Pasricha
14 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NT 10502

Mr. Steve Kaplan
8 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. Jack Shapiro
3 Benjamin Court
Ardsley, NY 10502

29
Mr. C. Gregory Cunnion
5 Benjamin Court
Ardsley, NY 10502

Hr. Nick Trantafillou
4 Benjamin Court
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Ann R Yerman
31 Sheridan Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583

Mr. Glenn Preiser
23 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Nancy W Cunnion
5 Benjamin Court
Ardsley, NY 10502

Ms. Simone Towbin
4 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. William Davis
122 North Evarts Ave.
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Catherine Arceri
10 Beaver Hill Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Ms. Patricia Trantafilio
4 Benjamin Court
Ardsley, NY 10502

Mr. Mark Towbin
4 Melissa Drive
Ardsley, NY 10502

Pat Lewis
106 North Evarts Ave.
Elmsford, NY 10523

10523
Isabelle Sabell
112 Cabot Avenue
Elmsford, New York

Oscar Jones, Sr.
200 Bryant Avenue
filmsford, New York 10523

Helen Perkins
1213 Old Country Road
Elmsford, New York 10523

Nancy Kupersmith
1611 Old Country Road
Elmsford, New York 10523

Mrs . Judith, Shannon
8 Leaf. Place
Elmsford, New Yor3c 10523

Harry Cooper
43 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, New York 10523

Shirley Cooper
43 Orchard Lane
Elmsford, New York 10523

Herbert Kruger
40 Beaver Road
Elmsford, New York 10523

Barbara Rissman
708 Old Country Road
Elmsford, New York 10523

n *rraut x l k i m *.
31a 399—1

SUPREME coart, WESTCHESTER Coant7
Full atie of action

MYLES GREENBERG and FRANCES M.
MULLIGAN,

Petitioners,
For a Judgment Pursuant to
C P L R Article 7 8 ,

8*
Pennoner(s)

against

ANTHONY F. VETERAN, Supervisor
of the Town of Greenburgh, New
York, SUSAN TQLCHIN, Town Clerk
of the Town of Greenburgh, New
York, and (SEE ATTACHED LIST OF
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS)

X2t#xdbu£3)
Respondent (s)

j u u u a fc a i iM C P ia . i* c _ m »«t» armr. Mn>

Index No. / g g

Date P ^ c ^ e c e m b e r 2 7 ,
1 9 8 8

REQUEST FOR

JUDICIAL

INTERVENTION

F o r Out 0*7

IAS entry date

Nunc of assigned judge

Date of assignment

□ Issue joined (date .
□ Bril of particulars served (check if applicable)

. ) (check if appliedii

ImthetCfty. of New York only:
Q^QwCity of New York is a party to this action.

jQ^TTieUjansit Authority (or MABSTOA) is a party to this aom

NATURE 0E7JUDICM
□ Request for preliminary conference C -
□ Note of issue and/or certificate of readiness C \■ •

Notice of motion (return date
Relief sought________________

INTERVENTION (check)
□ Other ex parte application
3 Notice of petition (return date__l/3_Q ZiL2________ —

I .Reliefsought H a v e r a a l . .o f . 1 2 / 1 Z 8 8 dg g il^

new v i l la g e .

Order to show cause
(Clerk will enter return date
Relief sought______________

□ Notice of medical malpractice action
□ Notice of dental malpractice action
□ Statement of net worth
□ Writ of habeas corpus

”□ Other (specify):____________________

NATURE OF ACTION OR PROCEEDING (check)
Tort
□ Motor vehicle
□ Medical malpractice
□ Dental malpractice
□ Seaman
□ Airline
□ Other tort, including but not limited to personal injury,

property damage, slander or libei (specify):-------------------------

Special Proceedings '
□ Tax certiorari /
□ Condemnation
□ Foreclosure
□ Incompetency or conservatorship
Other special proceeding, including but not limited to:

□ Article 75 (arbitration)
□ Article. 77 (express trusts)
S c Article 78
□ Other (specify):— ------------------------------- _ — ■

— Matrimonial (contested)
G Matrimonial (uncontested)

OTHER ACTION
□ Contract
□ Other (specify):— ......... — ......... ..........

instructions: -utacn nder sneets if necessary to provide required miormauon. #
If anv partv u appearing p ro >e iwithout an attorney), the reuuircd information concerning such partv is 10 be entered ;n
provided lor attorneys.

Attorneys) for plaintiff(s)/peutionerts)
Name

LOVETT & G O U LD , E S Q S .

32
PhoneAddress

180 E. Post Road, White Plains, N.Y.10601 428-8401

Attorneys) for defendants)/respondent^)
Name Address Phone

v »i£-„ L». -T ^

Name of insurance carriers (if appiicabie and available)

RELATED CASES (if none, write “NONE" below)

Title Index X Court
Coalition of United 3316/88 S.C.Westchester
Peoples et al v.
Veteran et al.

Jones v. Deutsch 88Civ7738 (GLG) USDC, SDNY**

Nature of relationship In prior filing Plaintiffs
challenged as illegal propose
housing for homeless in Town
Greenburgh. In instant actio:
Town Supervisor rejected
petition to incorporate new
village on, inter alia,*

I affirm under penalty of perjury that, to my knowledge. other than as noted above, there are and have been no related
action* or proceedings, nor hat a request for judical intervention previously been filed in this action or proceeding.

December 27, 1988 * 1

Lovett & Gould, Esqs.
Anorneyfs) for

1 a a Office A P.O, Add re* _ .J-20 East Post Road, White Plains,

name bdev.Jonathan Lovett

N.Y.10601 *claim that new village was sougr
to exclude housing for homeless.

**see attached sheet.

33
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
MYLES GREENBERG and FRANCES M.
MULLIGAN, RJI(Attached Sheet)

v.
ANTHONY F. VETERAN, Supervisor, et al.

Related Cases, addendum:
Jones v. Deutsch

Nature of Relationship
Action purports to be civil rights suit
and alleges that three natural persons and
Coalition of United Peoples Inc. conspired
to violate 42 U.S.C. 1985 (3) by associating
together, expressing their opinions and
petitioning for the creation of a new villi:
All defendants have moved to dismiss on tin
grounds that defendants' alleged activities!
are absolutely privileged under the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

34
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
— -- ----------------------------------- X
In the Matter of the Application of
MYLES GREENBERG and FRANCES M.
MULLIGAN, proponents of a
petition to incorporate the
Village of Mayfair Knollwood, Index No. /88

Petitioners,
For a Judgment pursuant to CPLR
Article 78,

-against-
ANTHONY F. VETERAN, Supervisor of the
Town of Greenburgh, New York, SUSAN
TOLCHIN, Town Clerk of the Town of
Greenburgh, New York, et. al.,

Respondents.
---------------------------------------- X

MYLES GREENBERG and FRANCES M. MULLIGAN, by their attorneys
LOVETT & GOULD, ESQS., respectfully allege as and for their
petition herein:

VERIFIED PETITION

Judge Assigned:
Hon.

JURISDICTION 1

1. This is a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, Section
2-210 of the Village Law, and 42 U.S.C. SS1983, 1988 seeking to
reverse a December 1, 1988, determination rejecting a petition to
incorporate the proposed Village of Mayfair Knollwood, on the
grounds that said determination is illegal, based on insufficient
evidence, and/or contrary to the weight of the evidence. No
compensatory or punitive damages are sought herein in light of
Giano v. Flood, 803 F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1986 ) and Davidson^
Caouano, 792 F .2d 275 (2d Cir. 1986).

THE PARTIES

2. MYLES GREENBERG and FRANCES M. MULLIGAN are aggrieved
residents of the Town of Greenburgh, New York, in which certain
territory sought to be incorporated as the said Village of
Mayfair Knollwood is located.

3. Respondent ANTHONY F. VETERAN is the duly elected
Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, New York.

4. Respondent SUSAN TOLCHIN is the duly elected Clerk of the
Town of Greenburgh, New York. 5 6

5. Upon information and belief, the additional respondents
identified in the caption to the Notice of Petition herein each
filed purported objections in writing to the petition to
incorporate the said Village and, in accordance with Section 2-
210(4)(b) of the Village Law, they are made parties to this
proceeding.

THE FACTS

6 . On or about September 14, 1988, a petition, signed by
more than five hundred persons, was duly filed with Respondent
Veteran proposing the incorporation of certain territory, to be
known as the Village of Mayfair Knollwood, within the Town of
Greenburgh.

7. Petitioners herein were amongst the petitioners who
signed said petition for incorporation.

8 . Upon information and belief notice of a November 1, 1988,
public hearing to consider the legal sufficiency of such petition
was duly posted and published in accordance with Section 2-204 of
the Village Law.

9. Upon information and belief, prior to the conduct of said
hearing Respondent Veteran publicly, repeatedly stated in words
or substance that he would take whatever steps were necessary to
insure that the petition was rejected.

10. On November 1, 1988, said public hearing was conducted by
Respondent Veteran, at which time opponents and proponents of the
petition for incorporation were heard.

11. Upon information and belief at said public hearing
approximately twenty-three persons made and/or read unsworn
statements in opposition to the petition to incorporate; some but

/not all of those persons then submitted written, purported
objections to the petition at the public hearing.

12. Upon information and belief at said hearing not a single
j objection was presented and/or heard with respect to the
'!
j
i.

37
statutory grounds, contained in Village Law §2-204(1), upon which
the legal sufficiency of a petition to incorporate a village can
lawfully be challenged.

13. Upon information and belief, at said hearing not a single
witness was sworn.

14. Upon information and belief, at said hearing not a single
exhibit was received and/or marked.

15. Upon information and belief, at said hearing not a single
affidavit was submitted.

15. Upon information and belief, at said hearing no testimony
was given and no such testimony was thereafter either reduced to
writing and/or subscribed in accordance with Section 2-206(3) of
the Village Law.

17. Upon information and belief at said hearing no evidence,
and/or proof, and/or affidavits and/or exhibits whatsoever were
adduced and/or heard with respect to the list of the names and

/addresses of the regular inhabitants of the proposed village
which list was contained in the petition to incorporate as
required by Village Law Section 2-202(1)(c)(2). 18 *

18. Upon information and belief at said hearing no evidence,
and/or proof, and/or affidavits, and/or exhibits whatsoever were

adduced and/or heard with respect to the legal sufficiency of the
signatures affixed to the said petition.

19. Upon information and belief at said hearing no evidence,
and/or proof, and/or affidavits, and/or exhibits whatsoever were
adduced and/or heard with respect to any claim that signatures
were secured on said petition by false pretenses.

20. Upon information and belief at said hearing no evidence,
and/or proof, and/or affidavits, and/or exhibits whatsoever were
adduced and/or heard with respect to the legal sufficiency of the
description of the boundary of the proposed village as contained
in the said petition.

21. Upon information and belief at said hearing no evidence,
and/or proof, and/or affidavits, and/or exhibits whatsoever were
adduced and/or heard with respect to any claim that the proposed
village, if incorporated, would exclude by reason of its zoning
authority low income housing for the homeless. 22 * * *

22. Upon information and belief at said hearing no evidence,
and/or proof, and/or affidavits, and/or exhibits whatsoever were
adduced and/or heard with respect to any claim that the boundary
of the proposed village excludes and/or is intended to exclude
minorities.

39
23. Upon information and belief, at the conclusion of said

public hearing Respondent Veteran announced that he was "going to
adjourn this Meeting until November 21st, 1988, and direct that
all written comments received by me on or before that date shall
be set forth in the record as if it [sic.] were stated here
tonight"; in response to immediate inquiries as to the time at
which the hearing would resume on November 21st, Respondent
Veteran explained that the public hearing would not be continued,
but that the adjournment was for the purpose of "written comments
only".

24. Upon information and belief, objection to Respondent
Veteran's determination to close the public portion of the
hearing but adjourn for the purpose of receiving written comments
only was immediately taken.

25. Upon information and belief on November 21, 1988, no
public hearing and/or continuation of the November 1st public
hearing was conducted with respect to the petition to incorporate
the proposed village of Mayfair Knollwood. 26

26. Upon information and belief by decisionydated December 1
1988, a copy of which is annexed hereto, Respondent Veteran
determined that the petition to incorporate was legally
insufficient on the following six grounds:

a. That the boundary of the proposed village, as set
forth in the petition, was not described with "common certainty"
as required by Section 2-202 ( 1)(c )(1) of the Village Law,

b. That the boundary of the proposed village was
gerrymandered so as to intentionally exclude Blacks.

c. That the sole purpose of the proposed village was to
prevent the construction of transitional housing for homeless
families near the neighborhood of Mayfair Knollwood.

d. That a substantial number of signatures on the
petition were obtained under false pretenses in violation of
Section 2-206(1)(g) of the Village Law.

e. That a substantial number of signatures on the
petition "contain irregularities" and do not match known
signatures of the persons alleged to have signed the petition in
violation of Section 2-206(1)(a) of the Village Law, and

f. That the list of regular inhabitants contained in
/

the petition was defective in that "numerous residents were
omitted" in violation of Section 2-206(1)(g) of the Village Law. 27

27. Respondent Veteran's determination that the* bo.ujidary of
the proposed village was not described with "common dertainty"
was, upon information and belief, entirely predicated upon an

41
undated, unsworn memorandum apparently prepared by the Town of
GreenJburgh' s Engineer in his official capacity, during municipal
working hours, with municipal resources and at the request and/or
direction of Respondent Veteran.

28. Upon information and belief, the memorandum referred to
in Paragraph "27", supra, was not read, heard, presented or
otherwise filed during the public hearing on the petition on
November 1, 1988.

29. Respondent Veteran's determination that the boundary of
the proposed village was intentionally gerrymandered to exclude
Blacks was, upon information and belief, entirely predicated upon:

(a) an undated, unsworn memorandum apparently prepared
by the Town of Greenburgh's Director of Community Development in
her official capacity, during municipal working hours, and with
municipal resources at the request and/or direction of R e s p o n d e n t

Veteran, and

(b) an undated, unsigned map, prepared by the Town of
Greenburgh Engineer in his official capacity, during municipal
working hours, with municipal resources and at the request and/or
direction of Respondent Veteran.

r*
30. Upon information and belief, neither the memorandum

referred to in subdivision (a) of Paragraph "29", supra, nor the

42
map referred to in subdivision (b) of said paragraph were read,
heard, presented or otherwise filed during the public hearing on
the petition on November 1, 1988.

31. Respondent Veteran's determination that the "sole
purpose" of incorporating a new village was to prevent
construction of transitional housing for homeless families was,
upon information and belief, entirely predicated upon:

(a) a purely political commitment made by him to Andrew
and/or Mario Cuomo pursuant to which he obligated himself
personally to insure the construction of such housing,

(b) a calculated disregard of facts, believed by him to
be true, which had been communicated to him by certain proponents
of the petition to incorporate, and

(c) certain politically oriented but legally irrelevant
speeches which, with Respondent Veteran's prior knowledge and
consent, were delivered during the public hearing on November 1,
1988.

32. Respondent Veteran's determination that a substantial
number of signatures on the petition were obtained by "false
pretenses" was, upon information and belief, entirely fabricated
since no objections, testimony, proof, affidavits or evidence of
any kind was ever submitted with respect to this issue.

43
33. Respondent Veteran's determination that a substantial

number of signatures on the petition "contain irregularities and
do not match the known signatures of the persons alleged to have
signed" was, upon information and belief, entirely predicated
upon:

(a) an unsworn, undated memorandum from a person who,
at the behest of, direction of and/or in coordination with
Respondent Veteran, conclusorily represented that she had done
handwriting analyses of the signatures on the petition and that
numerous signatures were improper, and

(b) the absence of any evidence that the person who
apparently prepared the memorandum referred to in subdivision (a)
of this paragraph had any qualifications as a handwriting expert,
and

(c) the absence of any evidence, documentary or
otherwise, with respect to which the conclusory assertions in the
said memorandum could be verified.

/34. Upon information and belief, the memorandum referred to
in subdivision (a) of Paragraph "33", supra, was not read, h e a rd ,

presented or filed during the public hearing on the petition on
November 1, 1988. 35

35. Respondent Veteran's determinatfon that the list of

regular inhabitants contained in the petition was incomplete was,
upon information and belief, entirely fabricated since:

(a) No objection with respect to this claim was ever
interposed with respect to the petition, and

(b) No evidence, proof, affidavits or exhibits were
ever adduced at the public hearing with respect to this claim.

36. Upon information and belief, the boundary of the proposed
village was described in the petition with common certainty.

37. Upon information and belief, the boundary of the proposed
village was drawn for proper reasons; said boundary was not drawn
with any racial motive and/or intent.

38. Upon information and belief, the Village of Mayfair
Knollwood was not proposed as a means to exclude housing for the
homeless, a circumstances expressly communicated by some
proponents of the village to Respondent Veteran.

/39. Upon information and belief no signatures on the petition
were obtained under false pretenses; all signatories were fully
and truthfully advised as to the precise nature of the petition. 40 * *

40. Upon information and belief the signatures on the
petition contain no irregularities and in fact are the signatures
of the persons whose names appear in said petition.

41. Upon information and belief the list of regular
inhabitants contained in the petition is accurate and complete.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

42. Section 2-206(3) of the Village Law expressly imposes the
burden of proof upon objectors to a petition to incorporate a
proposed village.

43. Since no evidence, proof, affidavits, sworn and/or
subscribed testimony was adduced at the public hearing on
November 1, 1988, by any objectors Respondent Veteran's
determination to reject the petition was illegal and/or based
upon insufficient evidence.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

44. Village Law §2-206(1) prescribes the sole bases upon
which a petition for incorporation of a village may be challenged

with respect to its legal sufficiency. 45

45. Upon information and belief the function of a Town
Supervisor at the public hearing with respect to any such

challenges is purely ministerial and limited to hearing
those statutory objections, if any, prescribed by Section 2-
206(1) .

46. Since Section 2-206(1) does not permit objections to a
petition's legal sufficiency on alleged factual grounds
which are irrelevant to the petition's substantive content,
Respondent Veteran's rejection of the petition on the basis of
his perception of the intent of some of the petitioners was ultra
vires, illegal, premised upon insufficient evidence, and
otherwise unlawful.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

47. Section 2-204 of the Village Law mandates that objections
to a petition to incorporate a village be actually presented by
objectors at the public hearing on such petition, at such time
and place as such public hearing has been scheduled to be heard
in accordance with duly posted and published notices.

/48. Section 2-206(1) of the Village Law mandates that the
Town Supervisor conducting the public hearing, actually meet with
the public at the time and place specified in the notice of
hearing at which time and place he is required to actually hear
objections which may be presented as to the legal sufficiency of
the petition for incorporation on the narrowly circumscribed
grounds set forth in said Section.

49. Since no objections were made and/or heard at the public
hearing on November 1, 1988, with respect to the legal
sufficiency of the proposed village's boundary, the means by
which signatures were gathered ~n the petition, the regularity
and/or propriety of such signatures, and the sufficiency of the
list of regular inhabitants, Respondent Veteran's reliance upon
such purported issues in his December 1, 1988, decision was
illegal, ultra vires, and predicated upon insufficient evidence.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

50. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraph "47".

51. Since no objection was ever filed with respect to the
means by which signatures were were gathered on the petition and
the sufficiency of the list of regular inhabitants, Respondent
Veteran's reliance upon such purported grounds in his decision of
December 1, 1988, was illegal, ultra vires, and unsupported by
sufficient evidence.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

52. The opinions, motives and/or intentions of the
approximately five hundred town residents who petitioned

48
Respondent Veteran to permit the conduct of an election regarding
the proposed Village of Mayfair Knollwood are absolutely
irrelevant to the legal sufficiency of their petition.

53. No evidence whatsoever was adduced at the public hearing
on November 1, 1988, with respect to the opinions, motives,
and/or intentions of those approximately five hundred persons.

54. Respondent Veteran's rejection of the petition on the
ground that he, as a public official, did not like what he
unilaterally claimed to be the opinions, motives, and/or
intentions of such persons violates those persons and
Petitioners' rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C.S1983, is otherwise illegal
and not supported by sufficient evidence.

WHEREFORE judgment is respectfully demanded reversing the
December 1, 1988, decision of Respondent Veteran, sustaining the
petition to incorporate the Village of Mayfair Knollwood,
awarding reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988,

costs, disbursements and such other and further relief as to the
Court seems just and proper.

Dated: White Plains, N.Y.
December 13, 1988

LOVETT & GOULD, ESQS.
Attorneys for Petitioners
180 E. Post Road
White Plains, N.Y. 10601
914-428-8401

■In the Matter .■*
of .

■ • . the Proposed Incorporation of
the Village of Mayfair Knollwood -

A petition for the incorporation of certain territory
in the Town of Greenhurgh as the Village of Mayfair
Knollwood having duly been received by me on September 14,
1988, and after due posting and publication of notice in
accordance with Section 2-204 of the Village Law, a hearing
to consider the legal sufficiency of such petition having
been held on November 1, 198 8, at the Greeuburgh Town Hall,
Knollwood and Taxrytown Roads, Elms ford, New York, and said
hearing having been adjourned until November 21, 1988 for

the receipt of written testimony, in accordance with Section
2-20 6' of the Village Law, and all testimony and objections
having been heard;

Now, therefore, I hereby determine that the aforesaid
petition does not comply with the requirements of Article 2
of the Village Law, does not comply with the requirements of
the Constitution of the United States of America, and does
not comply with the requirements of the Constitution of the
State of New York, for the following reasons:

1. The boundary description submitted with the
petition did not describe the boundaries of the prcpgifed
village with "common certainty" thereby making it" impossible
to locate the boundaries with the precision that is . .
necessary. Numerous gaps in the proposed boundaries
discovered making the description defective.

were

Til* memorandum la opposition submitted by tbs Town •
Engineer clearly details the deficiencies in' the boundary, •
description.

At least 15 voids in the description were discovered
rendering it impossible to accurately define the village
boundaries.

The description does not even begin at a known point on

a filed map which is the fundamental criteria of all
property descriptions.

The description uses the centerline of Grasslands Road
yet fails to note that Grasslands Road has been relocated
and that the centerline at many points lies within the Town
of Mount Pleasant.

Eor these reasons and the other reasons stated in the
memo of the Town Engineer the boundary description is
clearly defective and does not describe the proposed village
with "common certainty".

2. The boundaries, where ascertainable, were
gerrymandered in a manner to exclude black persons from the
proposed village. Such gerrymandering constitutes a blatant
attempt at racial discrimination and violates the rights
granted to all citizens by the Constitutioh of the United^

/States of America and the Constitution of the'State ofJJe*
V

York.
In the entire 30 years during which I have held

elective office I have never seen such a blatant and
calculated attempt to discriminate. The boundaries

-2-

repeatedly deviate from a- natural course solely to exclude
individual properties where blacks live. Within the • -
boundaries of the-proposed village there is not a single i
unit of multi-family housing, housing which historically has
been more accessible to minority groups because of its lower
cost.

The boundary zigs and zags approximately 1000 feet
along Route 9A to exclude a scatter site public housing
oroject populated by 25 black families. The boundary carves
around the Granada Condominium development on three sides to
exclude its approximately 90 black families. The boundary
carves around the Old Tarrytown Road School property, now .
owned by a black developer, on three sides to exclude its
future population of 87 families, the majority of which are
anticipated to be black families. The boundary carves
through the neighborhood of North Elms ford, a neighborhood
which has stood cohesively as a unified area since the
13 8 O ’s, including its pr edominantly - white area in the
village but excluding its predominantly black area. The
boundary carefully excludes the black families of the River
Park Apartments, Parkway Homes, Parkway Gardens,
Hillside—Wyndover, and of course, the public housing and-.low
anrf moderate income housing areas of predominantly black
Fairviev.

Included in the proposed village is all the available
undeveloped lands bordering black areas. These undeveloped #
lands are the only natural expansion areas for the black |

-3-

neighborhoods. By'taking these lands it. is clear- that the ■
petitioners intend to stop the growth of the black ;
neighborhoods in an attempt to exclude future generations of J
blacks from Greenburgh.

I
While Article 2 of the Village Law does not

specifically address itself to the "intent" of the
*petitioners, I firmly believe that the rights granted by the

federal and state constitutions transcend the procedural
technicalities set forth in the Village Law.

The proceedures for the formation of a new village
cannot be used to accomplish an unlawful end. Therefore, it.
is my obligation as a public official to defend the
constitution and to reject the petition on the grounds that
its purpose is to discriminate against black persons,, to
segregate from whites by the imposition of political
barriers, and to prevent the natural expansion of the blacx
population in the Town.of Greenburgh.

3. The new village was proposed for the sole purpose
of preventing the construction of transitional housing for
homeless families near the neighborhood of Mayfair
Knollwood. Such an invidious purpose is not what was

■

Sfcontempla’ted by the Legislature when the statutes ;ffcrernin?'
/

the incorporation of villages were drawn and cannot be
permitted to succeed. r- -

Historically, the legal, concept of incorporated
villages was created to afford residents of an area an
opportunity to create a multipurpose special distL-c-

-4

secure fire or police protection or other'public services.
Typically, clusters of people in an otherwise sparsely
settled town joined together to provide services that would
not be of benefit to the Town as a whole.

After World War II, the rapid population growth of
suburban towns led to the creation of town improvement
districts to provide needed services and the incorporation
of new villages virtually ceased and several existing
villages were dissolved.

The petitioners do not seek to incorporate to provide
themselves with services. The neighborhoods in question are
already serviced by town water, sewer, police and fire
protection.

Eather, the petitioners' seek, to incorporate for- another
purpose. Their stated purpose for forming the village is to
prevent the proposed construction of transitional housing
for 108 homeless families near their neighborhoods.

Before agreeing to consider the- homeless project, now
known as Westhelp, the Town Board insisted that various
safeguards be made a part of the proposal to adequately
mitigate against any possible adverse impacts.

/The Westhelp project includes a land set-aside of/
approximately 34 wooded acres, the majority of which would
remain as a natural woodland buffer around all sides of the
housing with a minimum of 400 feet of woodlands between all
buildings and existing* .' The-predcminantly black •

, . * " * # i
homeless residents would be provided on—site day care,* ** j

55
k counseling, social services, recreation, .-transportation, and
" 24 hour security. Visitation would be restricted to a
single visitor's room in full view of a security guard. e
Only homeless families would be housed on the premises
including only young mothers, their bahies and other small
children. There would be no derelicts, drug addicts,
alcoholics, or bums. Children of school age would be bused
back to their school district of origin thereby providing
continuity of education. In summary, the project would
provide a clean, efficient, cost effective, and humane
alternative to welfare motels. The 108 families that would
be housed for an average stay of six months each represent
only a fraction of the over 4500 homeless persons now'_
present in Westchester County. •.'̂ 1

Yet, given all the safeguards and the high purpose of
the Westhelp project, the petitioners have organized to step
the project by any means possible solely because of the
irrational argument that it is to be_ located in their
■back-yard*.

While Article 2 of the Village law does not
specifically address itself to the * intent" of the
petitioners, I firmly believe that the rights granted by .the

/
federal and state constitutions transcend the procedural
technicalities- set forth in the Village Law.

The procedures for the formation of a new village
e-cannot he used to accomplisii an unlawful and.

-o—

56
Therefor*, it is my obligation as a public official to

defend the constitution and to reject .the petition on the _
grounds that its purpose is to deny homeless persons needed
.services, to exclude homeless persons, and to .racially
discriminate against homeless persons who are predominantly

black.
4. The petition is defective in that a substantial

number of signatures were obtained under false pretenses. I
have received numerous objections from persons who signed
the oetition stating that they were told that the petition
was only to ask for a straw poll of the residents on their
opinion as to whether a village should be formed, -not a
petition to formally commence the incorporation procedure. ̂

5. The petition iŝ defective in that a .substantial. -,
number' of the signatures contain irregularities and do not
match the known signatures of the persons alleged to have

signed.
6. The petition is defective.^in that numerous

residents were omitted from the list of "regular
inhabitants". In particular, many of the newer residents

were omitted.
Dated: Elmsford, N.Y.

December 1, 1988.

ANTHONY je .
Supervisor

Town of Greeohurgh

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER : ss.
TOWN OF GREENBURGH

I, SUSAN TOLCHIN, Town Clerk of the Town of Greenburgh do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct! copy,
and the whole thereof, of a decision filed by Supervisor
Anthony F. Veteran on December 6 , 1988.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
7th day of December, 1988.

CS
E
A
L)

Town Clerk

V E R I F I C A T I O N

STATE OF NEW YORK
) S S .

COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER)

Myles Greenberg, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am one of the Petitioners herein; I have read the annexed
Petition, know the contents thereof and the same are true to my
knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be
alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I
believe them to be true.

Nota

WAYN3 K. MAXTSJU.
NOTARY PtiBUC. J. utiV

No. 6 0 -7 7 3 3 - .Q
QuaNfad in Westcnesitr County

lano LxvnsJt*} J/y v tfo

Sworn to before me this
^TZfiay of December, 1988.

V E R I F I C A T I O N

STATE OF NEW YORK
) ss . :

COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER)

Frances M. Mulligan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

FRANCES M. MULLIGA2T
Sworn to before me this
2 8"rtf day of December, 1988. / • i

1 .MARTOL

0 SaV tha' 1 a n ' Wl' ■ 1 have read th! , ato m v eknowled? e except those n S S r s therein which are stated to be alleged on
know the contents thereof and the same are t.u : them be true. Mv belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon

« Information and beliet. and as to those matters l oeu
knowledge, is based upon the following:

The reason I make this affirmation instead of

, affirm that the foregoing statements are true under penalties of perjury.

Da ted:
.Print Hgner'1 name t * lo“ " S I'» Iure

STATE OF n e w Y O R K . C O U N T Y O F
ss :

being sworn says: I am

□ » ‘ to mv knowledge, except t h e m atter , there,n whtch are stated to be alleged on
, know the contents thereof and the same a them to be true.
‘ ....— information and belief, and as to those matters 1 believe tnem

? cH ... 'a corporation, one of the parties to the action : I ^ * ed « '"e x c e p t those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on
1 — knowPthe contents thereof and “ ̂ » be t n £

Mv belief’ ^ toThos" matt/rs"therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon the following:

Sworn to before me on , 19
! Print jigneri name below signature

STATE OF N EW Y O R K . C O U N T Y O F
being sworn says: I am not a parts to the action, am over 18 years o!

age and reside at
On 19 I served a true copv of the annexed

in the following manner: . - „ ? e _ „

i el t-rh.nthe ?otd *"*«*<* b ^
!• □ bv delivering the same personally to the persons J >̂onoi

Service

and at the addresses indicated below:

Sworn to before me on ,19
(Prim tifur'i b«low '

Index No. 18286/88 Year 19
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

In the Matter of the Application of
MYLES GREENBERG, et ano. ,

Petitioners,

For a Judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78,
-against-

ANTHONY F. VETERAN, Supervisor of the Town
of Greenburgh, New York, et al.,

Respondents.

NOTICE OF PETITION AND VERIFIED PETffaON

LOVETT & GOULD
Attorneysfor Petitioners

180 E A S T P O S T R O A D

W H I T E P L A I N S . N E W Y O R K 10601
(914) 428-8401

0 f f . * c 3 %
° " 'C e 9 '9i d

° ^ A t ,

To:

Attomey(s) for

Service of a copy of the within

Dated:

is hereby admitted.

A ttorney (a) fo r

P L E A S E T A K E N O T I C E

O that the urithin is a (certified ) true copy of a
n o t i c e o f entered in the office o f the clerk o f the w ithin n am ed C ourt on

EN TR Y
19

|—j that an O rd er o f which the urithin is a true copy w ill be presen ted fo r settlem ent to the Hon.
n o t i c e o f one ° f ^ e judQes of the w ithin n a m ed Court,

S E TTL E M E N T at
on 19 . at M.

Dated:

LOVETT & GOULD
Attorneys for

180 E A S T P O S T ROA D

W H I T E P L A I N S , N E W YORK K#01

To:

62
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

in the Mather, of the .Application of
UYLSS GREENBERG and FRANCES M.
MULLIGAN, proponents of a
petition to incorporate the
Village of Mayfair Knollwood,

Petitioners,
For a Judgment pursuant to CFLR
Article 78,

-against-

Index No. 88

Judge Assigned:
Hon. py. f J h $ t* si

ANTHONY F. VETERAN, Supervisor of the
Town of Greenburgh, New York, SUSAN
TOLCHIN, Town Clerk of the Town of
Greenburgh, New York, f see annexed list
of additional Respondents),

Respondents.

PETITIONERSr MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Preliminary Statement
This memorandum of law is submitted in support of

Petitioners' contention that a December 1, 1988, decision of the
Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh rejecting a petition to
incorporate the proposed Village of Mayfair Knollwood must be
reversed as illegal, based upon insufficient evidence and/or/
contrary to the weight of the evidence. . / .

Since the Fifth Cause of Action is predicated upon a claim
that the Supervisor's decision infringed upon Petitioners' and
some five hundred other persons' First Amendment rights,

63
reasonable attorney's fees are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
SS1983, 1988. No compensatory or punitive damages are sought in
this special proceeding, however, in light of Giano v. Flood, 803
F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1986) and Davidson v . Capuano, 792 F.2d 275 (2d
Cir. 1986).

Factual Background

On September 14, 1988, a petition signed by more than five
hundred persons was filed with Greenburgh Supervisor Veteran
proposing the incorporation of certain territory, to be known as
the Village of Mayfair Knollwood, within the Town of Greenburgh
(Petition, para. 6)-Although notice of a November 1, 1988 r
public hearing on that petition was duly posted and published,.
Supervisor Veteran publicly announced prior to that date that he
would take whatever steps were necessary to insure' the rejection
of the petition (Petition, paras. 8-9).

On November 1, 1988, the public hearing was conducted by
Supervisor Veteran at which time twenty-three persons made and/or
read unsworn speeches in opposition to the petition. Some of

/
those--persons- -their- filed-written-purported objections to the
petition (Petition, paras. 10-11).

Not a single objection was presented and/or heard with
respect to the statutory grounds, contained in Village Law

§2-204( 1 ), upon, which the legal sufficiency of a petition to
incorporate a village can lawfully be challenged (Petition, para.
12). Not a single witness was sworn, not a single affidavit was
filed, not a single exhibit was submitted, and no testimony was
either taken and/or reduced to writing and subscribed as
permitted in accordance with Section 2-206(3) of the Village Law
(Petition, paras. 12-16).

At the conclusion of the public hearing Supervisor Veteran
announced that he was "going to adjourn this [m]eeting until
November 21st, 1988, and direct that all written comments
received by [him] on or before that date shall be set forth in
the record [of the public hearing] as if it [sic. 1 were stated
here tonight" (Petition, para. 23). He then clarxfied his
announcement, explaining that the adjournment was for the purpose
of receiving "written comments only" (ibid.) . Immediate
objection was taken to the Supervisor's ruling (Petition, para.
24).

■ On November 21, 1988,. the-public hearing with respect to the
incorporation petition was not continued (Petition, para. 25).

y '
By decision dated December 1,. 1988 (Petition, para. 26;

Exhibit annexed to Petition), Supervisor Veteran rejected the
Petition to incorporate on six grounds.

65
First he ruled that the boundary of the proposed village, as

set forth in the petition, was not described with "common
certainty" as required by Village Law §2-202(1) (c) (1) .
Unfortunately for the Supervisor no evidence whatsoever was
adduced at the hearing with respect to the legal sufficiency of
the description of the boundary of the proposed village
(Petition, para. 20).

Second he held that the boundary of the proposed village was
gerrymandered so as to intentionally exclude Blacks.
Unfortunately for the Supervisor no evidence whatsoever was
adduced at the hearing with respect to any claim that the
boundary of the proposed village excludes and/or is intended to
exclude minorities (Petition, para. 22).

Third he found that the sole purpose of the proposed village
was to prevent the construction of transitional housing for
homeless families. Unfortunately for the Supervisor no evidence
whatsoever was adduced at the hearing with respect to any claiffl
that the proposed village, if incorporated, would exclude by
reason of its zoning authority low income housing for the
homeless (Petition, para. 2 1 ) . ,

Fourth he decided that a substantial number of signature3 0,1

the petition were obtained under false pretenses in violation
Section 2-206(1) (g) of the Village Law. Unfortunately for the
Supervisor no evidence whatsoever was adduced at the hearing

66
respect to any claim that signatures were procured for the
petition on false pretenses (Petition, para. 19).

Fifth he detenuined that a substantial number of signatures
on the petition " contain irregularities" and do not match known
signatures of the persons alleged to have signed the petition, a
violation of Section 2-206( 1) (a) of the Village Law.
Unfortunately for the Supervisor no evidence whatsoever was
adduced at the public hearing with respect to the legal
sufficiency of the signatures affixed to the petition (Petition,
para. 18) .

Sixth he concluded that the list of regular inhabitants
contained in the petition was defective in that "numerous
residents were omitted"' in violation of Section 2—206(1) (g) of
the Village Law. Unfortunately for the Supervisor no evidence
whatsoever was adduced at the public hearing with respect to the
legal sufficiency of the list of names and addresses of the
tegular inhabitants of the proposed village, which list was
contained in the petition as required by Village Law S2-
202(1) (c)(2) (Petition, p^ra. 17).

• /
Veteran's determination that ./the boundary of the proposed

tillage was not described with "common certainty" was entirely
predicated upon an undated, unsworn memorandum written by the
Town of Greenburgh Engineer at the request and/or direction of
the Supervisor (Petition, para. 2 7 ) .

67
That memorandum was not read, heard, presented or otherwise

filed, during the November 1, 1988, public hearing on the petition
(Petition, para. 28).

Veteran's determination that the boundary of the proposed
village was gerrymandered so as to intentionally exclude Blacks
was entirely predicated upon two documents: (1 ) an undated, .
unsworn memorandum prepared by the Town's Director of Community
Development at the request and/or direction of the Supervisor,
and (2) an undated, unsigned map prepared by the Town Engineer at
the request and/or direction of the Supervisor (Petition, para.
29) .

Neither the Director's memorandum nor the Engineer's map
were read, heard, presentedr or otherwise filed during the public
hearing on the petition on November 1, 1988 (Petition, para. 30).

Veteran's determination that the "sole purpose" of
incorporating the new village was to prevent the construction of
transitional housing was entirely predicated upon three
circumstances: (1 ) his personal, political commitment made to
either the Governor or the Governor's son by reason of which the

/
Supervisor obligated himself to insure the construction of such
housing, (2) a calculated disregard of facts which the Supervisor
knew with respect to the intentions of the proponents of the new
village, and (3) certain politically oriented but legally
irrelevant speeches which, with Veteran's prior knowledge and

consent, were delivered during the November 1, 1988, public
hearing on the petition to incorporate (Petition, para. 31).

Veteran' s determination that a substantial number of
signatures on the petition had been obtained under false
pretenses was entirely fabricated since no objections, testimony,
proof, affidavits or evidence of any kind was ever submitted with
respect to this issue (Petition, para. 32).

Veteran's determination that a substantial number of
signatures on the petition contained "irregularities" and/or do
not match known signatures of the persons who allegedly signed
the petition, was entirely predicated upon am unsworn, undated
memorandum written by a person at Veteran's direction and/or
behest in which that person conclusorily announced that numerous
signatures were defective for one reason or another (Petition,
para. 33).

Absolutely no evidence exists that the author of that
memorandum has any qualifications as a handwriting expert
[Petition, para. 33(b)]. No documents or other evidence were
presented in support of the conclusory statements contained in

/
the memorandum [Petition, para. 33(c)]. '

The memorandum was not read, heard, presented or filed
during the November 1, 1988, public hearing.

69
Finally Veteran's decision that the list of regular

inhabitants contained in the petition was incomplete was
entirely fabricated since: no objection with respect to this
claim was ever interposed and no evidence of any kind was ever
adduced at the public hearing with respect to it [Petition,' para.
35(a)(b)].

Contrary to Veteran's decision the boundary of the proposed
village was described with common certainty (Petition, para. 36),
It was drawn for proper, not racial, purposes (Petition, para.
37).

In addition the village was not proposed as a means of
excluding housing for the homeless (Petition, para. 38), the
signatures on the petition were not obtained under false
pretenses (Petition, para. 39), the signatures on the petition
contain no irregularities and in fact are the signatures of tie
persons whose names appear in said petition (Petition, para. 40),
and the list of regular inhabitants is accurate and complete
(Petition, para. 41) .

POINT I /
■ SINCE " NOT' A ‘ SINGLE'COMPETENT OBJECTION
TO THE PETITION TO INCORPORATE WAS TIMELY
INTERPOSED, THE DECISION REJECTING THE

PETITION MUST 3E REVERSED AND THE PETITION SUSTAINED

When a petition to incorporate a proposed village is duly
filed with a town supervisor, the supervisor must within twenty,

70
days post and advertise a notice of public hearing, which hearing
is required to be conducted with respect to the legal sufficiency
of the petition- Village Law §2-204. The notice is required to
inform the public that any objections to the petition must be in
writing and signed. Ibid.

On the date and at the place specified in the public notice
the town supervisor must then meet with the public at which time
he is required to hear all objections pertaining to the
petition's legal sufficiency. Village Law §2-204(1).

The grounds for objections are statutorily circumscribed and
comprise but sevens that a person signing the petition was not
qualified [Village Law §2-204(1) (a) ], that, either one of two
separate jurisdictional predicates for the petition is lacking
[Village Law §2-204(1)(b) and (c)], that the territory of the
proposed village is part of a city or village [Village Law
52-204 ( 1 )(d)], that certain size and/or territorial components of
the proposed village have not been met [Village Law
52-204( 1 ) (e) ], that the population of the proposed village is
less than five hundred regular inhabitants [Village Law
§2-204 ( 1 )(f)], and that the petition in some other respect does/
n°t conform to*the requirements of Article 2 of the Village Law
(52-204( 1 ) (g)].

Since not a single competent objection to the petition to
incorporate the Village of Mayfair Knollwood was timely-

71
interposed, the December 1, 1388, decision of Supervisor Veteran
rejecting the petition must be reversed as a matter of law.
Consideration of each.-of Veteran's grounds for rejecting the
petition compels this conclusion.

His finding (Decision, pp. 1-2) that the metes and bounds
description failed to describe with common certainty the proposed
village's boundary is predicated upon a purported objection
styled in the form of a memorandum from the Town Engineer
(Petition, para. 27). Unfortunately for the Supervisor that
"objection” was neither heard nor submitted at the public hearing
on November 1st (Petition, para. 28).

It was therefore patently untimely and could not be
considered. Village Law SS2-204, 2—206(1). It is also patently
false (Petition, para. 36), as anyone skilled in reading such
descriptions can deduce from their own review of the description.

His finding (Decision, pp. 2-4) that the boundary of the
proposed village was drawn in order to intentionally exclude
Blacks, is simply improper. As noted supra, the Legislature has
narrowly circumscribed the grounds for objections, and the/
supposed intent_.of. petitioners .in. seeking-to incorporate a new
village is not a competent ground for challenging the "legal
sufficiency" of the petition itself. In any event the finding Is
patently false (Petition, para. 37), and is itself
unconstitutional as discussed in Point III, infra.

72
His finding (Decision, pp. 4-7) that the sole intended

purpose of the petition was to incorporate and zone out housing
for the homeless, is similarly improper and false (Petition, para.
33) . No such ground for objection is permissible under the
Village Law.

His finding (Decision, p. 7) that signatures on the petition
were secured by false pretenses is simply incompetent and false
(Petition, para. 39). No objection, timely or otherwise, was ever
filed with respect to this purported issue (Petition, para. 32).
The claim has been waived.

His finding (Decision, p. 7) that signatures on the petition
contain irregularities and/or do not match known signatures, is
simply illegal. No timely- objection, on this ground was ever

-♦ *
presented at the public hearing on November 1st (Petition, psora.
34) . Moreover, the funding is also patently false (Petition,
para. 40) .

His finding that the list of regular inhabitants is
deficient is similarly improper. No objection whatsoever was ever
filed, timely or otherwise, with respect to this claim (Petition,
Para. 35). Under the circumstances the objection was waived. It
is also materially false (Petition, para. 41).

POINT II
SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR
ANY OF SUPERVISOR VETERAN'S PURPORTED
FINDINGS, HIS DECISION MUST BE REVERSED

Section 2-206(3) of the Village Law expressly places the
burden of proving the legal insufficiency of the petition upon
the objectors. In the case at bar no competent evidentiary basis
was adduced by any objectors. Hence there must be a reversal.

Not a single witness was sworn at the public hearing
(Petition, para. 13). Not a single exhibit was received and/or
marked (Petition, para. 14). Not a single affidavit was submitted
(Petition, para. 15).

Not a word of. testimony was given and. no testimony was
either reduced to writing' and/or subscribed as contemplated by
Section 2-206(3) of the Village Law (Petition, para. 16).

No evidence whatsoever was adduced with respect to the
sufficiency of the list of regular inhabitants (Petition, para.
17), nor the legal sufficiency of the signatures affixed to the
petition (Petition, para. 18), nor the claim that signatures were
obtained under false pretenses (Petition, para. ̂ 19), nor tiie
.claim that-the .boundary described -in the petition was legally
insufficient (Petition, para. 2 0), nor the claim that the viU2(?e
was proposed to exclude housing for the homeless (Petition, P4**'
2 1 ), nor the claim that the proposed village's boundaries were

drawn to intentionally exclude Blacks (Petition, para. 22).

The unsworn, self-serving, conclusory speeches made at the
public hearing with respect to the housing and racial claims,
hardly comprise a substitute for evidence.

The unsworn, self-serving, undated and conclusory
pronouncements contained in the Engineer's memorandum (prepared
at Veteran's direction), similarly do not constitute evidence.
Indeed only one inference can be drawn from the Engineer's
failure to submit his opinion/analysis under oath— it is
materially false.

Indeed the fasity of the Engineer's "analysis" is
graphically proven by the existence of the map which he drew,
clearly delineating the contiguous boundary line which must have
been distilled with both common and engineering certainty from
the description in the petition [Petition, para. 29(b)].

The unsworn, self-serving, undated and conclusory
^ouncements which challenge the authenticity of signatures on
the petition also is entitled to be summarily ignored. It does

/
ftot comprise-evidence. - I t s ~author~'never even purported to be a
handwriting expert [Petition, para. 33(b)].

*
In any event even if the signatures which she challenges

• -

were defective, absent a showing"that the remaining signatures ..do

- •» ’ m

/
13

75
not comprise twenty percent of the residents of the proposed
village qualified to vote for Greenburgh Town officials, the
signature analysis is legally irrelevant. Village Law
S2-202(1)(a)(1). Not surprisingly neither Veteran nor anybody
else addressed the twenty percent issue.

In sum not a single objector even attempted to meet his-
burden of proof. None did so. Reversal is thus required.

POINT III
SINCE VETERAN'S DECISION VIOLATES THE

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE SIGNATORIES
TO THE PETITION FOR INCORPORATION, IT MUST RE REVERSED

More than five hundred citizens petitioned Veteran for an
opportunity to conduct an election to determine whether a new
village should be incorporated (Petition, para. S). Without any
evidentiary basis whatsoever, Veteran then divined that each of
the five hundred petitioners improperly believes that the village
should be established to exclude Blacks and to bar construction
of housing for the homeless (Decision annexed to Petition).

On this preposterous "finding" the Supervisor purports to
/wrapthimself, in-the Flag, arrogate to-himself statutory powers

denied him by the Legislature/ libel hundreds of persons
simultaneously, and then reject the petition. While that
grandstanding may have achieved some low level of applause in

*
certain quarters, it should horrify the Court and all other? who

• .**H .t * •

believe in our Constitutional form of government.

In petitioning government for the purpose of securing an
election, the five hundred citizens were engaging in activities
which even a grade school child in this country would recognize
to be absolutely protected by the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Gorman Towers, Inc v. 3ocoslavs3cv, 62S F.2d
607, 614 (8th Cir. 1980); Board of County Commissioners of Adams
County v. Shrover, 662 F.Supp. 1542, 1545 (D.C.Colo. 1987); Weiss
v. Willow Tree Civic Association, 467 F.Supp. 803, 818-19
(S.D.N.Y. 1979).

Moreover it is beyond question that the government has
absolutely no business punishing a citizen because of his beliefs
and or intent so long as that person is peacefully exercising, his
rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment. As succinctly put by
Judge Weinfeld in Weiss v. Willow Tree Civic Association, supra
at 817-18:

The protection of the First Amendment does not
depend on 'motivation'; it depends on the nature
of defendants' conduct... The defendants have every

/•
' — right'-to- band‘ together for the advancement of > • . ■

beliefs and ideas, however unpalatable the*ideas
or whatever the underlying motive.

See Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205 (7th Cir. 1978) ,* cfsrt.
den 439 U.S. 916 (1978)(On claim that First Amendment protected

15 • • -

77
conduct could undercut municipality's fair housing policy, Court
holds "That the effective exercise of First Amendment rights may
undercut a given government's policy on some issue is one of the
purposes of those rights").

Under these circumstances it is readily apparent that
Veteran committed constitutional error in rejecting the petition
because he does not like what he (mis)perceives his constituents
hold by way of beliefs, opinions and intentions. Governmental
retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights is
unlawful, violative of 42 U.S.C. S1983, and well-settled caselaw.
Franco v. Kelly, 854 F.2d 584 (2d Cir. 1988); Rookard v. New York
City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 710 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1983).
For that reason alone the decision to reject the petition should
be reversed.

POINT rv
p e t i t i o n e r s a r e e n t i t l e d to

A REASONABLE AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES

Since Veteran's decision to reject the petition was
admittedly in substantial respect motivated by his intention to

/retaliate against a vast number of people because of their
supposed beliefs, a clear-cut First Amendment claim has been
presented as discussed i n the preceding Point. Judgment in favor
of the Petitioners should therefor include an award of reasonable
attorney's fees. Matter of Johnson v. Blum, 58_N.Y. 2d 454

78
(1983); Matter of Unger v. Blum, 117 A.D.2d 607 (2d Dept. 1986);
Matter of Aviles v. D'Elia, 97 A.D.2d 244 (2d Dept. 1983); Matter
of Haussman v. Kirby, 96 A.D.2d 244 (2d Dept. 1983); Matter of
Bahmv v. Blum, 95 A.D.2d 294 (2d Dept. 1983); Matter of Fairly v.
Fahey, 79 A.D.2d 607 (2d Dept. 1981); Young v. Tola, 66 A.D.2d
377 (4th Dept. 1979).

CONCLUSION

The petition should be granted, the December 1, 1988,
decision of Respondent Veteran should be reversed and the
petition to incorporate the Village of. Mayfair Knollwood
sustained, with an award of reasonable attorney's fees, costs,
disbursements and such other- and further relief as to the Court,
seems just and proper.

Dated: White Plains, N.Y.
December 13, 1988

LOVETT *4 GOULD, ESQS .
Attorneys for Petitioners
180 E. Post Road
White Plains, N.Y. 10601
914-428-8401

79
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------ x

In the Matter of the Application of
Myles Greenberg and Frances M. Mulligan,
proponents of a petition to incorporate
the Village of Mayfair Knollwood,

Petitioners,
For a Judgment pursuant to
New York CPLR Article 78,

INDEX NO.
89 Civ.

Verified Petition
For Removal Of
Action From
State Court

- against -
Anthony F. Veteran, Supervisor of the
Town of Greenburgh, New York, Susan Tolchin,
Town Clerk of the Town of Greenburgh,
New York, and (See annexed list of
additional Respondents, Exhibit A),

Respondents.

X
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK:

Respondents Anthony F. Veteran, Supervisor of the Town
of Greenburgh, and Susan Tolchin, Town Clerk of the Town of

Greenburgh, respectfully allege as follows:
1. This proceeding was commenced in the Supreme Court

of the State of New York, County of Westchester, by service

of a copy of the Notice of Petition signed December i4,
1988, Verified Petition and Petitioners' Memorandum of Law

signed December 13, 1988 on the Town Clerk of the Town of
Greenburgh at the Greenburgh Town Hall, Town of Greenburgh,
Elmsford, New York on December 29, 1988. Upon information

and belief all additional respondents listed were, according

80
to Village Law Section 2-210(4), served with copies of same

by certified mail and are parties to the proceeding.
2. This Verified Petition for Removal of Action from

State Court is being filed within 30 days after service of
the Notice of Petition and Verified Petition upon the
respondents to this proceeding. Thus, this removal petition
is timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b).
Copies of the Notice of Petition, Verified Petition, and
Petitioners' Memorandum of Law are annexed in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(a), as Exhibit B. These papers

are the only papers served upon the respondents in this

proceeding.
3. Petitioners Myles Greenberg and Frances M.

Mulligan allege in paragraph two of the Verified Petition

that they are residents of the Town of Greenburgh, New York,

in the Southern District of New York, and reside in the
territory sought to be incorporated as the proposed village

of Mayfair Knollwood.
4. Respondent Anthony F. Veteran is the duly elected

Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, New York.
5. Respondent Susan Tolchin is the duly elected Town

Clerk of the Town of Greenburgh, New York.
6. Upon information and belief, all of the additional

respondents are objectors to the petition to form the

proposed village.
7. Pursuant to Village Law Section 2-202, a petition

proposing the incorporation of the Village of Mayfair

-2-

81
Knollwood within the Town of Greenburgh was filed with the
Town of Greenburgh on or about September 14 , 1 988 . Pursuant
to Village Law Sections 2-204 and 2-206, a public hearing
was held on the proposed village where objectors had an
opportunity to and did submit both oral and written
objections to the petition proposing the new village.

8. Pursuant to Village Law Section 2-208, the
Supervisor is required to render a decision as to the legal
sufficiency of the petition.

9. Respondent Veteran, in a decision dated December
1, 1988, rejected the petition proposing the incorporation
of the proposed village of Mayfair Knollwood. Supervisor

Veteran rejected the petition on the basis both that is was
not legally sufficient according to several grounds

enumerated in Village Law Section 2-206, and was not legally

sufficient in that the proposed village would result in
racial discrimination and the violation of civil rights
under the Constitution and laws of the United States of

America and the Constitution of the State of New York.
Supervisor Veteran's decision states that the boundaries of

the proposed village are gerrymandered in such a way as to

constitute a blatant attempt at racial discrimination, and

that the intent of those seeking the incorporation of the

proposed village is to prevent the construction of
transitional housing for homeless families, the majority of

which would be made up of blacks and other racial

minorities. A copy of the Supervisor's decision appears as

_3_

an exhibit to the Verified Petition annexed hereto as

Exhibit B.
10. Pursuant to Village Law Section 2-210, a resident

of the area encompassing the proposed village may seek
review of a supervisor's decision adverse to a village
petition by means of a special proceeding pursuant to
Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules of the State
of New York. Petitioners Myles Greenberg and Frances M.
Mulligan in paragraph 1 of the Verified Petition allege that

they seek such a review in the instant proceeding.
11. This action may be removed to this Court by

respondents pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1443(2) and 28

U.S.C. Section 1441(b).
(a) U.S.C. §1443(2) authorizes removal, in any civil

action:
"(2) For any act under color of authority

derived from any law providing for equal

rights, or for refusing to do any act on the
ground that it would be inconsistent with

such law."
As summarized above and as more fully set forth in
Supervisor Veteran's decision, the proposed village petition

ygs rejected in part on the basis of Federal and State
Constitutional and statutory provisions providing for equal

rights. Petitioners Myles Greenberg and Francis M. Mulligan

thus have brought this Article 78 proceeding for acts or

refusals to act by respondents that fall within §1443(2).

- 4 -

83
Accordingly, this action may be removed to this Court by
respondents pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1443(2).

(b) This action also may be removed by respondents,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441 (b). Petitioners Myles Greenberg
and Francis M. Mulligan, in their Article 78 proceeding,
purport to assert a claim against respondents under 42
U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988 on the ground that Supervisor

Veteran's decision allegedly violated their rights under the
First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

This cause of action is one of which the district court has

original jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343, founded
on a claim or right under the Constitution or laws of the

United States. Thus, removal also is proper under 28 U.S.C.

§1441 (b) without regard to the citizenship or residence of
the parties.

12. There is currently pending in United States

District Court for the Southern District of New York a
related civil action before Judge Goettel, Case number 88
Civ 7738 (GLG), entitled Yvonne Jones, et al, v. Lawrence

Deutsch, et al. , brought by the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People, the National Coalition for
the Homeless, and other plaintiffs, against the proposed

village incorporators and Supervisor Veteran seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages to

prevent the incorporation of the proposed village on the

grounds that the incorporation sought is for the purposes

racial discrimination and discrimination against homeless

-5-

persons and is part of a conspiracy to abridge the voting
rights, housing rights, and emergency shelter rights of
black and homeless persons. Plaintiffs in that action seek
a ruling declaring that defendant Veteran has the right and
obligation under the Constitution and laws of the United
States and the State of New York to deny the petition for
the proposed incorporation on those grounds. Plaintiffs in
that federal action are named as Respondents in this
proceeding and are joining in removal.

13. Respondents Robert Martin Company, Keren

Developments, Inc., and Ruth E. Roth are also joining in

removal.

14. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), respondents are
filing herewith and present to this Court a bond with good

and sufficient surety conditioned that they will pay all
costs and disbursements incurred by reason of this removal

proceeding : .ould it be determined that this action is not

removable or is improperly removed.

-6-

85
Accordingly, respondents respectfully request that this

action, now pending against them in Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Westchester, be removed to this

Court.
Dated: Elmsford, New York

January 25, 1989

y :/ r ■
ANTHONY F. VETERAN
Supervisor '

Cuddy & Feder
90 Maple Avenue
White Plains, N.Y. 10601
(914) 761-1300

i /
By:

RUTH E . ROTH
Attorneys for Respondent:
Keren Developments, Inc,

ROBERT MARTIN COMPANY

-7-

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
(212) 373-3000

Attorneys for Respondents:
Yvonne Jones, Anita Jordan, April
Jordan, Latoya Jordan, Anna Ramos,
Lizette Ramos, Vanessa Ramos,
Gabriel Ramos, Thomas Myers,
Lisa Myers, Thomas Myers, Jr.,
Linda Myers, Shawn Myers, and
National Coalition for the Homeless

and
Local counsel for Respondents:
Yvonne Jones, Odell A. Jones,
Melvin Dixon, Geri Bacon,
Mary Williams, James Hodges
and National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, Inc.
White Plains/Greenburgh Branch

and

Grover G. Hankins, Esq.
NAACP, Inc.
4805 Mount Hope Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21215-3297
(301) 486-9191
Attorney for Respondents:
Yvonne Jones, Odell A. Jones,
Melvin Dixon, Geri Bacon,
Mary Williams, James Hodges
and National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, Inc.
White Plains/Greenburgh Branch

-8-

87
INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION

I, Anthony F. Veteran being duly sworn, deposes and

says: that I am the Town Supervisor of the Town of

Greenburgh a respondent in the within action; I have read

the foregoing Verified Petition for Removal of Action from

State Court and know the contents thereof; the same is true

to my own knowledge except as to matters therein stated to

be alleged on information and belief, and to those matters I

believe them to be true based on writings and other papers

in my possession.

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

Notary Public

ANNA C. MATTHewS
Nbtary Puttie, State of Nw Ybr* ^ _ Na 60-4359680

in Westchester County
'km Expires August 31. 1969

ANTHONY F. VETERAN
Supervisor

Sworn to before this
day " " 1989 .

-9-

I, Susan Tolchin being duly sworn, deposes and says:
that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Greenburgh a
respondent in the within action; I have read the foregoing
Verified Petition for Removal of Action from State Court and
know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own
knowledge except as to matters therein stated to be alleged
on information and belief, and to those matters I believe
them to be true based on writings and other papers in my

possession.

INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

'SUSAN TOLCHIN
Town Clerk

Sworn to before this
^ d a y of , 19 8 9.

Notary Public
ANNA C. MATTHEWS

Notary Public, State of New 'tor*
No. 60-4359830

QuaMed in Westchester County
lamt Expires August 31, 1989

-10-

I, RUTH E. ROTH being duly sworn, deposes and says:
that I am a member of the firm of Cuddy & Feeder, attorneys
for respondent, Keren Developments, Inc., in the within
action; I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for
Removal of Action from State Court and know the contents
thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge except as to
matters therein stated to be alleged on information and

belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true
based on writings and other papers provided to me by

respondent. The reason why this verification is made by me

is that my office is in a different county than that of the

respondent.

INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

/ ;// k H -
RUTH E. ROTH

Sworn to before this
day of

S Notary PuhSic
/C r ■

1989.

LAWRENCE J. REISS
Notary Public, State of New YbHt

No 4838072
Qualified in Westcnester County /

Commission Expires September 30, 19_£

-11-

X, LLoyp Z- Rodu being duly sworn, deposes
and says: that I am an Attorney-in-fact of the Robert Martin
Company, a partnership, and a respondent in the within
action; I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for
Removal of Action from State Court and know the contents
thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge except as to
matters therein stated to be alleged on information and
belief, and to those matters I believe them to be true based

on writings and other papers in my possession.

PARTNERSHIP VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

Sworn to before~^.his
day ofd s <

Notary Public

AN N A C . M ATTH EW S
Notary P u t t ie . S ta te of N e w V ttfc

N a 6 0 -4 3 5 9 8 8 0

Q u a P fle d in W a s te h e e le r County
T e rm E x p ir e * A u g u s t 3 1 , 1 9 8 9

-12-

P o w e r o f A t t o r n e y

91 1 1987• - L- -)f J
£2 7_H3 cl.

-■ +
> Mi

K N O W A L L M E N B Y T H E S E P R E S E N T S , w h i c h a r e i n t e n d e d t o

c o n s t i t u t e a G E N E R A L P O W E R O F A T T O R N E Y , p u r s u a n t t o A r t i c l e
5 , T i t l e 1 5 o f t h e N e w Y o r k G e n e r a l O b l i g a t i o n s L a w :

T h a t w e , M A R T I N S . B E R G E R a n d R O B E R T F . W E I N B E R G ,
i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d a s g e n e r a l p a r t n e r s o f R O B E R T M A R T I N
C O M P A N Y , e a c h w i t h a n o f f i c e a n d p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s a t 1 0 0
C l e a r b r o o k R o a d , E l m s f o r d , N e w Y o r k 1 0 5 2 3 , d o h e r e b y a p p o i n t
B R A D W . B E R G E R , L E E S . N E I B A R T a n d L L O Y D I . R O D S , e a c h w i t h
a n o f f i c e a n d p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s a t 1 0 0 C l e a r b r o o k R o a d ,
E l m s f o r d , N e w Y o r k 1 0 5 2 3 , o u r a t t o r n e y s - i n - f a c t T O A C T
S E V E R A L L Y , i n o u r n a m e s , p l a c e s a n d s t e a d i n a n y w a y w h i c h
w e o u r s e l v e s c o u l d d o , i f w e w e r e p e r s o n a l l y p r e s e n t , t o t h e
e x t e n t p e r m i t t e d b y l a w t o a c t t h r o u g h a n a g e n t .

W e w i l l n o t q u e s t i o n t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f a n y i n s t r u m e n t
e x e c u t e d b y o u r s a i d a t t o r n e y s - i n - f a c t p u r s u a n t t o t h i s
p o w e r n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e i n s t r u m e n t f a i l s t o r e c i t e
t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e r e f o r o r r e c i t e s m e r e l y a n o m i n a l

c o n s i d e r a t i o n ; a n y p e r s o n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f
s u c h i n s t r u m e n t m a y d o s o a s i f f u l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e r e f o r
h a d b e e n e x p r e s s e d t h e r e i n .

T o i n d u c e a n y t h i r d p a r t y t o a c t h e r e u n d e r , w e h e r e b y
a g r e e t h a t a n y t h i r d p a r t y r e c e i v i n g a d u l y e x e c u t e d c o p y o r
f a c s i m i l e o f t h i s i n s t r u m e n t m a y a c t h e r e u n d e r , a n d t h a t
r e v o c a t i o n o r t e r m i n a t i o n h e r e o f s h a l l b e i n e f f e c t i v e a s t o
s u c h t h i r d p a r t y u n l e s s a n d u n t i l a c t u a l n o t i c e o r k n o w l e d g e
o f s u c h r e v o c a t i o n o r t e r m i n a t i o n s h a l l h a v e b e e n r e c e i v e d
b y s u c h t h i r d p a r t y , a n d e a c h o f u s , f o r o u r s e l v e s a n d o u r
h e i r s , e x e c u t o r s , l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a n d a s s i g n s , h e r e b y
a g r e e t o i n d e m n i f y a n d h o l d h a r m l e s s a n y s u c h t h i r d p a r t y
f r o m a n d a g a i n s t a n y a n d a l l c l a i m s t h a t m a y a r i s e a g a i n s t

s u c h t h i r d p a r t y b y r e a s o n o f s u c h t h i r d p a r t y h a v i n g r e l i e d
o n t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s i n s t r u m e n t .

T h i s P o w e r o f A t t o r n e y s h a l l n o t b e a f f e c t e d b y t h e
s u b s e q u e n t d i s a b i l i t y o r i n c o m p e t e n c e o f e i t h e r o f t h e
p r i n c i p a l s .

I N W I T N E S S W H E R E O F , w e h a v e h e r e u n t o s i g n e d o u r n a m e s
t h i s / C ™ d a y o f N o v e m b e r , 1 9 8 7 .

/
' Ma r t i n s / B e r G e r ^

A c7 i v f
.( (■ i c A-

R O B E R T F . W E I N B E R G

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K )

: s s
C O U N T Y O F W E S T C H E S T E R )

O n t h e 10— d a y o f N o v e m b e r , 1 9 8 7 , b e f o r e m e
p e r s o n a l l y c a m e M A R T I N S . B E R G E R a n d R O B E R T F . W E I N B E R G , t o

m e k n o w n , a n d k n o w n b y m e t o b e t h e i n d i v i d u a l s d e s c r i b e d i n
a n d w h o e x e c u t e d t h e f o r e g o i n g P o w e r o f A t t o r n e y , a n d t h e y
a c k n o w l e d g e d t o m e t h a t t h e y e x e c u t e d s a m e i n t h e i r
i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s a n d a s g e n e r a l p a r t n e r s o f R o b e r t
M a r t i n C o m p a n y .

Li Ok-
N o t a r y P u b l i c

R e c o r d & R e t u r n T o :

L l o y d I . R o o s , E s q .
V i c e P r e s i d e n t & G e n e r a l C o u n s e l
1 0 0 C l e a r b r o o k R o a d
E l m s f o r d , N e w Y o r k 1 0 5 2 3

f O M AM M W L k M . H m v t P uW h

SsSau

' LiX j j r f .

INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION

I, RUTH E. ROTH being duly sworn, deposes and says:

that I am a respondent in the within action; I have read the
foregoing Verified Petition for Removal of Action from State
Court and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my
own knowledge except as to matters therein stated to be
alleged on information and belief, and to those matters I
believe them to be true based on writings and other papers

in my possession.

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

Sworn,to before this
y - day of . / .

7
1989 .

Notary Public?

Uueirfied in W estchester County
Comrrtienon E

-13-

93
Attorney's Verification

Jay L. Himes, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts
of the State of New York affirms under the penalties of perjury
that he is the attorney for the respondent Yvonne Jones and
others aforesaid in this proceeding; that the foregoing petition
yg ptue to his own Knowledge except as to matters stated lO be
upon information and belief; that as to those matters he believes
them to be true based on writings and other papers furnished to
h-i m tv resoondents; and that the reason why the verification is

made by him is that his office is in a differrent county than

■respondents.

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

' T L / b

/ JAY L. HIMES
/

-14-

94
EXHIBIT A

List of Additional Respondents
Reproduced at Pages 5 to 30 of this Appendix.

EXHIBIT B
Notice of Petition, Verified Petition,

Petitioners' Memorandum of Law
Reproduced at pages 3, 34, and 62

respectively, of this Appendix.

and

96
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)
O P I N I O N

a p p e a r a n c e s :
Counsel for Petitioners:

LOVETT & GOULD
180 East Post Road
White Plains, New York 10601

By: Jonathan Lovett, Esq.
Of Counsel

Counsel for Respondents Anthony F. Veteran and
Susan Tolchin:

PAUL AGRESTA, ESQ.
Town Attorney
Town of Greenburgh
P.O. Box 205
Elmsford, New York 10523

Counsel for Respondents Keren Developments, Inc.
and Robert Martin Company:

CUDDY & FEDER
90 Maple Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601

By: Ruth E. Roth, Esq.
Of Counsel

Counsel for Respondent Ruth E. Roth (Pro Se):
RUTH E. ROTH, ESQ.
90 Maple Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601

97
Counsel for Respondents Anita Jordan, April Jordan,

Latoya Jordan, Anna Ramos, Lizette Ramos,
Vanessa Ramos, Gabriel Ramos, Thomas Myers,
Lisa Myers, Thomas Myers, Jr., Linda Myers,
Shawn Myers, and National Coalition for the
Homeless:

-and-
Local Counsel for Respondents Yvonne Jones, Odell A.

Jones, Melvin Dixon, Geri Bacon, Mary
Williams, James Hodges and National
Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, Inc.
White Plains/Greenburgh Branch:

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019

By: Jay L. Himes, Esq.
Cameron Clark, Esq.
Melinda S. Levine, Esq.
William N. Gerson, Esq.
Of Counsel

Counsel for Respondents Yvonne Jones, Odell A. Jones,
Melvin Dixon, Geri Bacon, Mary Williams,
James Hodges and National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People, Inc.
White Plains/Greenburgh Branch:

GROVER G. HANKINS, ESQ.
NAACP, Inc.
4805 Mount Hope Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21215-3297

By: Robert M. Hayes, Esq.
Virginia G. Shubert, Esq.
COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS
105 East 22nd Street
New York, New York 10Q10
Julius L. Chambers, Esq.
John Charles Boger, Esq.
Sherrilyn Ifill, Esq.
99 Hudson Street
New York, New York 10013
Andrew M. Cuomo, Esq.
12 East 33rd Street - 6th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Of Counsel

98
G 0 E T T E L, D. J. :

Federalism is a concept whose vitality is perceived by some
to be rather fluid. There are those, for example, who believe it
worthy only of lip service and that, as a general proposition, if
a matter may be brought in a court it may be brought in federal
court. To that thinking, the retort is quite simple: "federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction."1 Still others, while
cognizant of the notion's existence, perceive its recognition as
"seasonal" in nature, going in and out of style with the
philosophical predilections of a given administration and the
quantity and temperament of its judicial appointments. As to that
point of view, we note only that the document serving as
federalism's source is entitled to greater deference than the whims
of current majoritarian thinking.

There are those, however, who share our view that federalism
is a neutral constant of federal jurisprudence, the necessary
product of our dualist system. The proceeding before us is rife
with federalist implications, and it is our recognition of and
respect for those concerns which shapes and guides our handling of
the matter.

New York has provided an avenue for judicial review of state
and municipal administrative action under N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R.
("NYCPLR") §§ 7801-06 (McKinney 1981 & Supp. 1989), the so-called
Article 78 proceeding. Judicial review under these provisions

Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger. 437 U.S. 365, 374
(1978) .

99
generally is limited to determining whether the official's actions
constituted an abuse of discretion, were unsupported by sufficient
evidence, or were contrary to existing law. Id. at § 7803.
Although an Article 78 proceeding cannot be initiated in federal
court, Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stude. 346 U.s.
574, 581 (1954) , it is contended that such a proceeding nonetheless
may be removed here so long as a federal question is asserted in
the Article 78 petition — apparently no matter how tangential or
attenuated — or if the respondents allegedly were acting pursuant
to federal law protecting equal rights — even if that law
parallels similar state law mandating like action.

As will become clear, we harbor certain reservations as to
this interest in "federalizing" Article 78 proceedings generally
and this proceeding in particular. Fortunately, at least in this
case a solution presents itself. Animated chiefly by due respect
for the principles of comity and federalism that serve as the
essential bedrock for healthy federal-state relations, we find that
abstention is proper in this case and, consequently, we remand the
matter sua sponte to the court from whence it originated and
belongs (in our view) — the New York Supreme Court for the County
of Westchester. I.

I . BACKGROUND
This case, at its core, is unmistakably a product of the

"NIMBY Syndrome" — i.e., that syndrome triggered by proposals to
locate prisons, public housing, waste facilities, and other such

100

community additions usually perceived by the targeted community as
undesirable, the abiding characteristic of which is to ensure that
the proposed facility be placed somewhere if it must but "Not In
My BackYard." The public project at issue here is the proposed
construction of emergency housing for the homeless.

In January of last year, the Town of Greenburgh, in
conjunction with the County of Westchester, proposed to build
emergency or "transitional" housing to accommodate 108 homeless
families on land owned by the County in the Town. The proposed
developer is West H.E.L.P., Inc. ("West HELP"), a not-for-profit
corporation formed for the express purpose of constructing housing
for the homeless of Westchester County. It is generally
acknowledged that the vast majority of homeless people who would
qualify for residence in the West HELP project are minorities,
specifically blacks.

In response to that announcement, a number of Greenburgh
residents living in the area immediately surrounding or adjacent
to the proposed site formed the Coalition of United Peoples, Inc.
("COUP"). COUP'S purpose, de facto or otherwise, is to coordinate
opposition to the West HELP project and, most importantly, to
ensure that the project is not constructed in COUP'S backyard. As
part of those efforts, COUP began a drive under N.Y. Village Law
§§ 2-200 to 2-258 (McKinney 1973 & Supp. 1989) (the "Village Law")
to incorporate an area encompassing the proposed West HELP project
as a separate village to be denominated the Village of Mayfair

101
Knollwood.2 On September 14, 1988, pursuant to section 2-202 of
the Village Law, COUP presented an incorporation petition to
Greenburgh Town Supervisor Tony Veteran, whose responsibility it
is in the first instance to determine whether the petition complies
with the requirements of the Village Law. In accord with section
2-204 of the Village Law, a public hearing on the matter was
conducted on November 1 at which oral testimony was received. Town
Supervisor Veteran then adjourned conclusion of the hearing until
November 21 for the sole purpose of entertaining written comments
on the petition.

Also on November 1, and prior to any decision by Town
Supervisor Veteran on the merits of the petition, various citizens
of the Town of Greenburgh, a number of homeless people living in
Westchester County, the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People, and the National Coalition for the Homeless
joined forces as plaintiffs in a federal action in this court
against COUP, certain of its members, and Town Supervisor Veteran.
Jones v. Deutsch. No. 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG). The complaint alleges,
inter alia, a civil rights conspiracy amongst the named defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985, the ostensible purpose of which is
to deprive plaintiffs of voting, housing, and emergency-shelter

Just how incorporation of the proposed village would
obstruct construction of housing for the homeless on what is
admittedly County-owned property is not entirely clear to us.
Presumably, COUP believes that leaders of the newly formed village
would be able to so bog down and delay approval of necessary zoning
and other permits that pursuit of the project would b e c o m e

undesirable.
4

102

rights grounded in federal and state law. Plaintiffs also sought
a declaratory judgment directing that Town Supervisor Veteran
reject the allegedly discriminatory incorporation petition,
contending that such a result would be consistent with the proper
execution of his oath of office. The COUP defendants moved to
dismiss that action on various grounds (among them ripeness and
standing). The motion was adjourned sine die pending determination
of the instant matter, which had been removed to this court during
the interim.

Town Supervisor Veteran, apparently not in need of a federal
court order controlling his actions, issued a decision on December
1, 1988 rejecting COUP'S incorporation petition (the "December 1
Decision"). In a carefully worded opinion, six specific grounds
were enumerated as the bases for the decision:

(1) the proposed boundaries are not described with "common
certainty," as required by section 2-202 of the Village Law;

(2) the proposed boundaries, where ascertainable, evidence an
intent to discriminate and are gerrymandered to exclude black
residents, rendering the petition violative of "rights granted by
the federal and state constitutions";

(3) the petition was prepared for the invidious purpose of
"preventing the construction of transitional housing for homeless
families," rendering it violative of "rights granted by the federal
and state constitutions";

(4) substantial petition signatures were obtained under false
pretenses;

103

(5) substantial petition signatures are irregular; and
(6) numerous Town residents (particularly newer residents)

are not identified as would-be inhabitants of the proposed village,
as required by section 2-202 of the Village Law.3

Under the express provision of section 2-210 of the Village
Law, review of a town supervisor's decision on an incorporation
petition may be had only through an Article 78 proceeding on
grounds that the decision "is illegal, based on insufficient
evidence, or contrary to the weight of evidence." Eleven days
after Town Supervisor Veteran issued his decision on the COUP

petition, two COUP members instituted an Article 78 proceeding in
New York Supreme Court challenging that decision. On January 30
of this year, the respondents in that proceeding filed a petition
for removal in the Southern District of New York, designating the
matter as related to the pending Deutsch action.

Urging that the December 1 Decision be reversed and the
petition to incorporate the Village of Mayfair Knollwood be
sustained, the Article 78 petition sets forth five specific bases
allegedly supporting the relief requested:

(1) since section 2-206(3) of the Village Law requires that
testimony offered at a petition hearing "must be in writing" and
that the "burden of proof shall be on objectors," and since only
oral testimony was taken at the November 1 hearing, Veteran's

Principally as a result of that action, an amended
complaint was filed in the Deutsch action which, inter alia, drops
defendant Veteran as a member of the alleged civil rights
conspiracy.

104

actions were contrary to the requirements of the Village Law and
thus illegal or, alternatively, his decision was not supported b y

sufficient evidence;
(2) since a town supervisor's authority under section 2-206

of the Village Law to review incorporation petitions allegedly is
strictly ministerial (i.e ., limited to assessing the validity of
only those objections related to petition requirements set forth
by the statute), and because the statute does not provide for an
examination of or inquiry into the petitioners' intent, Veteran's
decision is illegal because it went beyond the scope of his
ministerial authority or, alternatively, his perceptions of
discriminatory intent are not supported by sufficient evidence;

(3) since under section 2-206 of the Village Law the sole
evidence Veteran purportedly was allowed to consider was that
adduced at the November 1 public hearing and reduced to writing,
his reliance on material received during the period he allowed for
further written comment between November 1 through 21 renders his
decision illegal or, alternatively, contrary to the weight of the
objecting evidence received at the November 1 hearing;

(4) since no objections allegedly were filed with respect to
the means by which petition signatures were gathered or as to the
sufficiency of the list of regular inhabitants, Veteran's decision
is illegal or is unsupported by sufficient evidence; and

(5) since the petitioners' opinions, motives, or intentions
are matters allegedly protected by the First Amendment of the

105
United States Constitution, Veteran’s decision violates those
rights.4

Freely expressing our doubt as to the propriety of removal in
this case, a conference in chambers was scheduled to discuss, inter
alia. (i) whether, as a general proposition, Article 78 proceedings
may be removed to federal court, (ii) if so, whether removal in
this case is justified under either of the pertinent statutory
provisions invoked, to be discussed infra, and (iii) whether,
assuming the instant proceeding can be removed, principles of
abstention dictate that we stay our hand or dismiss in deference
to a state proceeding addressing some or all of the issues raised.

Memoranda and letters on these subjects were submitted to the
court prior and subsequent to the scheduled conference. Generally,
all parties are of the belief that the Article 78 proceeding at bar
could be and properly was removed, and only counsel for the Article
78 petitioners expressed any concern as to possible abstention
implications. In sum, it is readily apparent that the parties are
content to be before this court and believe that this court is the
proper forum in which to address the Article 78 matter; no motion
to remand is contemplated. Notwithstanding this state of affairs,
but consistent with the primacy of this court's obligation to
protect its jurisdiction, the court has engaged in its own research

As discussed infra. we add only that it appears c e r t a i n

of the questions bearing on the legality of the procedures e m p l o y e d

and whether Veteran exceeded the scope of his authority under the
Village Law are unsettled questions of New York law (indeed, from
what we are told by petitioners' counsel, certain of the state
questions may be matters of first impression).

106

on the matter. See Railway Co. v. Ramsey. 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) 322,
328 (1874) (noting court's authority to remand sua sponte if
jurisdiction is found lacking); Cutler v. Rae, 48 U.S. (7 How.)
729, 731 (1849) (holding consent of parties does not confer federal
jurisdiction; it remains "duty of this court to take notice of the
want of jurisdiction, without waiting for an objection from either
party"). Finding that, even if this proceeding properly was
removed, we should abstain pursuant to familiar jurisprudential
considerations, we now remand this proceeding sua sponte. See
Corcoran v. Ardra Ins. Co. . 842 F.2d 31, 36-37 (2d Cir. 1988)
(holding "that when the district court may properly abstain from
adjudicating a removed case, it has the power to remand the case
to state court"). II.

II. DISCUSSION
The right to remove a state case to federal court is, of

course, a unique incident to our federalist system with no
antecedent at common law. Consequently, removal must be founded
upon one of the statutory bases provided by Congress. Gold-Washing
and Water Co. v. Keves. 96 U.S. 199, 201 (1877). The instant
petition invokes two such statutory provisions. First, the Article
78 respondents contend that removal is warranted under the
infrequently utilized "refusal clause" of the civil rights removal
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2). Second, it is contended that the
assertion of the First Amendment challenge to the December 1
Decision presents a federal question and warrants removal under the

107
general federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). We
consider each of these provisions in turn.

a. 28 U.S.C. <5 M A 2 1 2 1

Respondents devote the lion's share of their argument to the
propriety of removal in this case under the refusal clause of the
civil rights removal statute. The refusal clause permits removal
in those cases where a person acting "under color of authority" is
"refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent
with [federal law providing for equal rights]." Of the precedent
that exists construing this awkwardly worded statute, perhaps the
two leading decisions were rendered by two of this circuit's most
learned and respected jurists.

Certainly, the most complete analysis of the statute provided
to date in any circuit is then District Judge Newman's opinion in
Bridgeport Edu. Ass'n v. Zinner, 415 F. Supp. 715 (D. Conn. 1976),
which sets out the criteria to be employed in a refusal clause
analysis. Generally adopting what he termed Judge Newman's
"exhaustive and scholarly review of the subject," now Chief Judge
Brieant, sitting by designation and writing for the two-member
majority in White v. Wellington, 627 F.2d 582 (2d Cir. 1980),
succinctly summarized the relevant inquiry: the refusal clause
"may be invoked when the removing defendants [state or municipal
officials] make a colorable claim that they are being sued for not
acting 'pursuant to a state law which, though facially neutral,
would produce or perpetuate a racially discriminatory result as

108

applied.'" Id. at 586 (quoting Zinner. 415 F. Supp. at 722). The
statute is exceptional in that it allows the presence of a federal
defense to control the question of jurisdiction. Zinner. 415 F.
Supp. at 723 n. 7 (citing Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottlev.
211 U.S. 149 (1908)).

Recognizing, we think, that the statute, if left open-ended,
could lead to the "federalization" of standard state cases
involving challenges to official state or municipal action, an
important limitation (consistent with the existing legislative
history) has been read into the law's meaning. To state a
"colorable claim" under the statute, the removal petition must
contain a good faith allegation that there exists a conflict
between the state law in issue and a federal law protecting equal
rights. As Chief Judge Brieant put it, the removal petition must
allege "a colorable claim of inconsistent state/federal
requirements." Wellington. 627 F.2d at 587. See also Armeno v.
Bridgeport Civil Serv. Comm'n. 446 F. Supp. 553, 557 (D. Conn.
1978) (Newman, J.) (noting refusal clause permits removal when
official "declined to observe state requirements that he believes
are inconsistent with the obligations imposed on him by a federal
law protecting equal rights"). The basis of the conflict
requirement seems self-evident: without a colorable federal-state
conflict, the need to remove to federal court to ensure the proper
vindication of superior federal mandates is not manifested. When
federal and state interests are compatible, the state court is
poised to assure that the defendant's parallel justification for

109
action under state law is given proper consideration. cf.
Mg.11 ington, 627 F . 2d at 590 (Kaufman, J. , concurring) (state
officials will seek "extraordinary" option of removal under the
refusal clause and forego the familiar confines of a state forum
"because the federal issue they seek to litigate is so
substantial").

Indeed, Judge Meskill, dissenting in Wellington, characterized
the colorable conflict requirement as the "jurisdictional
touchstone" under the refusal clause. Wellington. 627 F.2d at 592.
The Wellington majority concurred with that assessment:

We agree fully with Judge Meskill's
description of the "jurisdictional touchstone"
as "a colorable conflict between state and
federal law" leading to the removing
defendant's_ refusal to follow plaintiff's
interpretation of state law because of a good
faith belief that to do so would violate
federal law. That good faith belief is tested
objectively, in that the claim to that effect
of the removing defendant must be "colorable."

Id. at 586-87. Where the majority and dissent parted ways was on
what would constitute a "colorable conflict." In that case, the
defendants had phrased their removal petition in the alternative;
i.e., they contended that they had not violated the applicable
state statute or, if it were found that they had, then they acted
as they did for to do otherwise would have been inconsistent with
the requirements of federal law protecting equal rights. Judge
Meskill felt that alternative allegations of this nature did not
justify removal under the exceptional provisions of the refusal
clause. Id. at 591. The majority, however, found "no reason why

no
a removal petition cannot contain inconsistent allegations in the
nature, here, of a traditional plea of confession and avoidance
without confession," so long as the petition contains "a colorable
claim of inconsistent state/federal requirements." Id. at 587.
Put differently, the contrary nature of state law need not be a
matter definitively resolved, so long as the defendant
alternatively can assert in good faith a colorable claim of
conflict with federal law. Id. at 590 (Kaufman, J., concurring).

Guided by these holdings, we find that a colorable conflict
between federal and state law is neither asserted in the instant
petition nor can such a conflict in good faith be found to exist.

As outlined supra. Town Supervisor Veteran denied the
incorporation petition on six enumerated grounds. Only grounds (2)
and (3) implicate federal concerns relating to equal rights; the
remaining grounds for denial are largely ministerial in nature,
based entirely on the filing requirements of New York's Village
Law. Grounds (2) and (3), however, each conclude that even though
the Village Law "does not specifically address itself to the
'intent' of the petitioners, I firmly believe that the rights
granted by the federal and state constitutions transcend the
procedural technicalities set forth in the Village Law." December
1 Decision f 2, at 4; id, f 3, at 6. The referenced constitutional
protections are not identified in either the December 1 Decision
or the removal petition, but it seems plain that the allusions are

Ill
to the Fourteenth Amendment's command of equal protection.5 Thus,
respondents conclude, the Village Law, though neutral on its face,
would produce a discriminatory result if applied in ignorance of
federal constitutional proscriptions, and therein rests the * &

Citing only Gomillion v. Lightfoot. 364 U.S. 339 (1960),
respondents' memorandum notes simply that "Supervisor Veteran
relied on federal constitutional protections against race
discrimination . . . [and] [t]here can be no genuine doubt that
these provisions are laws 'providing for equal civil rights.'"
Respondents' Conference Memorandum at 9. See also Town of
Greenburgh's Memorandum at 4 (same). Gomillion struck down a
gerrymandered plan redefining the boundaries of the City of
Tuskegee, Alabama as violative of the Fifteenth Amendment. That
amendment provides that the right of citizens to vote shall not be
denied on account of race or color. Justice Whittaker, noting that
the Gomillion plaintiffs were not being denied their right to vote
"in the Fifteenth Amendment sense" (i.e., they could still vote,
albeit not within the newly defined city limits), concurred in the
decision but on grounds that the "fencing out" of black citizens
"is an unlawful segregation of races of citizens, in violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . ."
Id. at 349. Although of no moment, we think Justice Whittaker
makes a cogent point. More importantly, however, it has been
suggested that the Supreme Court has come ultimately to embrace
Justice Whittaker's analysis. See Karcher v. Daggett. 462 U.S.
725, 748 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring) (noting "the Court has
subsequently treated Gomillion as though it had been decided on
equal protection grounds") (citing Whitcomb v. Chavis. 403 U.S. 124,
149 (1971)). Accord City of Mobile v. Bolden. 446 U.S. 55, 86-87
& n.7 (1980) (Stevens, J., concurring). We will not belabor the
reader with citation to a number of Court cases, both majority and
concurring opinions, which have cited Gomillion in the Fourteenth
Amendment context. Suffice it to say that gerrymandering by race,
although a Fifteenth Amendment violation under Gomillion, certainly
falls within the reach of the Equal Protection Clause as well.
That additional support could be especially pertinent here since
those who would be excluded from the allegedly gerrymandered
boundaries of the Village of Mayfair Knollwood would not, unlike
the plaintiffs in Gomillion. be deprived of their pre-existing
right to vote (here, in the Town of Greenburgh) . See especially
Caserta v. Village of Dickinson. 491 F. Supp. 500, 506 n.14 (S.D.
Tex. 1980) (distinguishing Gomillion since excluded plaintiffs
retained their pre-existing right to vote; *'[t]hose not within the
Village of Dickinson boundaries have merely maintained their status
quo as members of Galveston County"), aff'd in relevant part, 672
F .2d 431, 432-33 (5th Cir. 1982).

1 12

colorable conflict. Respondents' Conference Memorandum at 8-9.
Whether or not this is so, however, we believe respondents'
argument misses a crucial point.

Wellington repeatedly references and requires a conflict
between federal and "state law," not a state law or statute. The
corpus of pertinent "state law" under Wellington. it seems to us,
must necessarily include state constitutional law, for it is a
fundamental maxim of any constitutional society, as New York is,
that constitutional mandates govern and delimit legislative and
regulatory enactments of the majority. Thus, at least one New York
court has noted that incorporation petitions, even if in compliance
with the ministerial requirements of the Village Law, will not be
sustained if their end is that of advancing racial discrimination.
In re Rose. 61 Misc.2d 377, 305 N.Y.S.2d 721, 723 (Sup. Ct. 1969),
aff'd mem., 36 A.D.2d 1025, 322 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (2d Dep't 1981).6
Although state law in such a case may be found by resort to the
State Constitution, as opposed to the Village Law, it is "state
law" nonetheless which forbids the invidious result.

As is made plain by the December 1 Decision, Town Supervisor
Veteran relied on both the Federal and State Constitutions in
rejecting the petition. No conflict between the pertinent federal
and state constitutional provisions was perceived by Supervisor
Veteran; he acted at the command of both. See especially

Whether a town supervisor, as opposed to the courts, has
authority to make that determination was not discussed in Rose and
is not addressed here.

113
Wellington, 627 F.2d at 587 (central inquiry is whether official
subjectively believed an actual conflict between federal and state
law existed); id̂ . at 590 (Kaufman, J., concurring) (same). Nor is
any such conflict to be found by reference to existing state law;
federal and New York constitutional law governing equal protection
are in harmony. See Seaman v. Fedourich. 16 N.Y.2d 94, 262
N.Y.S .2d 444, 450 (1965) (noting New York's equal protection
clause, embodied in N.Y. Const, art. 1, § 11, "is as broad in its
coverage as that of the Fourteenth Amendment"); Dorsey v.
Stuyvesant Town Corp., 299 N.Y. 512, 530 (1949) (holding protection
afforded by New York's equal protection clause is coextensive with
that granted by Fourteenth Amendment), cert, denied. 339 U.S. 981
(1950) .

The case at bar, therefore, is readily distinguishable from
Cavanaqh v . Brock, 577 F. Supp. 176 (E.D.N.C. 1983) (three-judge
panel), a case cited by respondents. Removal in that case was
permitted under the refusal clause because the removing defendants
argued that the relevant provisions of the North Carolina
Constitution, which were alleged to be in conflict with the
Fourteenth Amendment, either had been rescinded or, if in effect,
could not be complied with due to the contrary dictates of the
Federal Constitution. Id. at 179-80. Here, the Equal Protection
Clause will embrace whatever discrimination allegedly would have
occurred, supra note 5, and Seaman and Dorsey make plain that the
corollary state constitutional provision is at least as broad as
its federal counterpart. Thus, if Town Supervisor Veteran was

114

required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to act as he did, he similarly would be required to so act by the
equal protection clause of the New York Constitution since the
latter is to be read in pari materia with its federal relation.

Certainly, notwithstanding Supervisor Veteran's belief that
he was complying with state constitutional law, respondents'
ability to remove this case under the refusal clause is not lost
if the removal petition contains an allegation based on that
belief. Such is the teaching of Wellington. Respondents, however,
must in good faith be able to plead alternatively that if they were
not acting in accordance with state law, then their refusal to so
act was the product of conflict between federal and state mandates.
Wellington, 627 F.2d at 587. No such good faith assertion can be
made here, Federal and state law are coextensive in this area.
See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (requiring that any "pleading, motion,
or other paper" submitted to the court and signed by an attorney
be grounded in good faith belief that its substance is warranted
by facts, law, or good faith argument for the law's modification).

The jurisdictional paragraph of the removal petition
acknowledges this reality. See Verified Petition for Removal f 11,
at 4-5 ("proposed village petition was rejected in part on the
basis of federal and state Constitutional and statutory provisions
providing for equal rights . . . [and,] [a]ccordingly, this action
may be removed to this Court by respondents pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1443(2)") (emphasis added). The petition's conclusion, however,
does not state the law. If it did, then in every case challenging

115
state or municipal action relying on federal authority parallelling
cited state law, the case could be removed to federal court. This
is not the conundrum contemplated by the refusal clause; indeed,
it is no conundrum at all. Federal and state law must not merely
parallel one another; they must be in conflict (or, more
accurately, there must be a good faith allegation of conflict).
See especially In re Quirk. 549 F. Supp. 1236, 1241 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)
(refusal clause satisfied since colorable conflict existed between
federal court order and New York civil service law); In re Buffalo
Teachers Fed'n. 477 F. Supp. 691, 694 (W.D.N.Y. 1979) (removal
under refusal clause appropriate since "state defendant caught
between the conflicting reguirements of a Federal [court] order and
of state law"); Zinner. 415 F. Supp. at 718 (noting refusal clause
"'intended to enable state officers, who shall refuse to enforce
state laws discriminating in reference to [civil rights] on account
of race or color, to remove these cases to the United States courts
when prosecuted for refusing to enforce those laws'") (quoting
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1115 (1863) (statement of Rep.
Wilson)). Contrasted with those scenarios, respondents here are
being prosecuted for having acted as they saw fit under the State's
equal protection clause, not for having failed to do so, and that
provision tracks its federal namesake.

Consequently, we find that there is no colorable conflict
between federal and state law in this case, and that removal, if

116

justified here, must be found for reasons other than those provided
under the refusal clause . 7

b. 28 U.S.C. S 1441fb)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), "[a]ny civil action of which the

district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or
right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the
United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship
or residence of the parties.” Clearly, the assertion of the First
Amendment claim in the petition presents a federal question. We
are not so sure, however, that an Article 78 proceeding
automatically qualifies as a "civil action" under the removal
statute.

The term "civil action" (or the predecessor term "civil suit")
has been capaciously defined. Thus, the Supreme Court has opined
that appeals from state or municipal administrative action via writ
of prohibition or mandamus may qualify for removal:

The principle to be deduced from [our] cases
is, that a proceeding, not in a court of
justice, but carried on by executive officers
in the exercise of their proper functions, as

Our decision on the refusal clause might appear
gratuitous in light of our holding infra that, even if this case
was properly removed, principles of abstention warrant a remand.
Our ruling on the abstention/remand, however, might be different
were we to find that the case could be removed under the refusal
clause. Congress's explicit determination that state officials
facing the type of federal-state conflict outlined above should be
afforded the option of a Federal forum would inevitably color an
abstention analysis. Respect for the state interests outlined
infra might very well have to give way in such a circumstance to
the overarching federal concern. Federalism (and respect for it)
does, after all, have a federal as well as state component.

117
in the valuation of property for the just
distribution ̂of taxes or assessments, is
purely administrative in its character, and
cannot, in any just sense, be called a suit;
and that an appeal in such a case, to a board
of ̂assessors or commissioners having no
judicial powers, and only authorized to
determine questions of quantity, proportion
and value, is not a suit; but that such an
aPPeal may become a suit, if made to a court
or tribunal having power to determine
questions of law and fact, either with or
without a jury, and there are parties litigant
to contest the case on the one side and the other.

Upshur County v.__Rich, 135 U.S. 467, 475 (1890). Accord
Commissioners of Road Improvement Dist. No. 2 v, St. Louis s . w.

Eili—Co^, 2 5 7 U.S. 5 4 7 , 5 5 7 , 5 5 9 ( 1 9 2 2 ) . Cf. Weston v. City Council
of— Charleston, 2 7 U.S. (2 Pet.) 4 4 9 , 4 6 4 ( 1 8 2 9 ) (the term "civil
su^̂ ',n -*-n defining Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over
state cases, is a comprehensive one including various modes of
proceeding; so long as an adversary proceeding inter partes. it
qualifies as a "civil suit").

That said, it is beyond cavil that a statutory appeal of
administrative state action, whether or not it involves diverse
parties or a federal question, may not be filed in federal court.
D.gpa^tmen t _o_f_Transp._and Dev, of Louisiana v. Beaird-Poulan. Inc.,
449 U.S. 971, 973-74 (1980) (Rhenquist, J., dissenting from denial
of certiorari) (citing Stude, 346 U.S. at 581). Following from
that principle, we doubt that Congress intended the term "civil
action" under the removal statute to be so sponge-like as to allow
its absorption of every conceivable type of proceeding involving
appeal from state or municipal administrative action which touches

118
upon a federal question. To believe otherwise is to suggest that
Congress was ignorant of notions of comity and federalism that are
such an important part of our constitutional and jurisprudential
fabric. Cf. St. Louis S.W. Rv., 257 U.S. at 554 ("[a]n
administrative proceeding transferred to a court usually becomes

gjudicial, although not necessarily so") (emphasis added).
In New York, an Article 78 proceeding, although admittedly

civil in nature, is manifestly circumscribed by the terms of the
statute, and it possesses numerous indicia distinguishing it from
a typical inter partes civil action. It is a self-styled "special
proceeding," NYCPLR § 7804(a), designed to supplant the previous
writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, id. at § 7801.
Consequently, and consistent with the predecessor writs, the scope
of review in an Article 78 proceeding is narrowly confined, id. at
§ 7803, and the relief recoverable is limited, id. at § 7806. A
number of other substantive and procedural irregularities are
unique to this form of proceeding. See especially NYCPLR § 103
(expressly noting distinction between "civil action" and "special 8

8 Indeed, the proper application in the modern context of
19th-Century Court precedent defining "civil action" is a matter
not free from doubt. Those Courts could not possibly have
envisioned the rise of populism, the demise of economic due
process, and ultimately the advent of the New Deal, all of which
radically changed economic life and governance in this society.
Mirroring the federal model produced by the New Deal, a multitude
of administrative agencies now permeate the ranks of state
decisionmaking. In that context, we think it a legitimate question
to wonder whether the Supreme Court and/or the Congress believe it
appropriate to define expansively the term "civil action" so as to
allow the universal removal of garden-variety appeals from state
administrative action.

119

proceeding," and vesting courts with authority to convert a special
proceeding into a civil action if nature of claim or relief sought
goes beyond confines of the former); J. Weinstein, H. Korn, & a.
Miller, New York Civil Practice §§ 7801-06 (1988 & Supp. Dec. 1988)
(discussing nature of Article 78 proceeding); D. Siegel, Handbook
on-New York Civil Practice §§ 557-70 (1978 & Supp. 1988) (same) . 9

Given the unique nature of the action, the fingerprints of
federalism inevitably will be so spread upon an Article 78
proceeding that we doubt the proceeding ordinarily can be wiped
clean of its essential state administrative character by the mere
presence of a federal question, no matter how insignificant, and
be rendered removable thereby. Therefore, to permit generally the
removal of Article 78 proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is, we
think, to invite disruption with well-settled notions of comity
and federalism. See, _e. g . , Crivello v. Board of Adjustment. 183
F. Supp. 826, 828 (D.N.J. 1960) (holding appeal of state
administrative action via writ of certiorari, although nominally
denominated a "civil action at law," did not constitute a "civil
action" as that term is used under the general removal statute) ;
Collins v.— Public Serv. Comm'n of Missouri. 129 F. Supp. 722, 725

Thus, for example, an Article 78 proceeding is far
different from the administrative "appeal" at issue in Horton v.
Liberty Mutual Ins._Co., 367 U.S. 348 (1961). The Court there held
that a challenge to a Texas administrative determination on a
worker's compensation claim could be filed in Federal court as a
"civil action" on grounds of diversity, but only because Texas law
provides that such a challenge "is not an appellate proceeding[; ]
[i]t is a trial de novo wholly without reference to what may have
been decided by the [Texas Industrial Accident] Board." Id. at 354-55 (emphasis added).

120
(W.D. Mo. 1955) (finding appeal of state administrative action by
writ of certiorari to county court "was a mere continuation of the
administrative proceeding" and, thus, could not be removed). But

City o f ,Owatonna v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co.r
298 F. Supp. 919, 922 (D. Minn. 1969) (and cases cited therein) . 10

Despite our misgivings, we assume for present purposes that
an Article 78 proceeding may be removed under the general removal
statute, for our concerns and respect for federalism can be
accommodated in this case by the law of this circuit relating to

Our conclusion would by necessity be different when
removal of an Article 78 proceeding is sought under the refusal
clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2), the civil rights removal statute
discussed supra. Since an Article 78 proceeding is the prescribed
avenue of challenge to administrative action in this State, such
a proceeding must be removable under the refusal clause if that
clause is to be given effect in New York.

Also, there may be times when the federal interest in an
Article 78 proceeding may so predominate as to warrant the
proceeding's removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Thus, in a series of
cases involving appeals to state courts from tobacco quotas imposed
by local administrative review committees, federal courts permitted
removal under the general removal statute. In those cases,
however, the local committees were authorized by federal law and
their members were appointed by the United States Secretary of
Agriculture, manifesting the obvious federal interest in regulating
the tobacco crop. See Davis v. Jovner. 240 F. Supp. 689, 690-91
(E.D.N.C. 1964) (and cases cited therein). Cf. Yonkers Racing
£°rp._v._City of Yonkers. 858 F.2d 855, 863-64 (2d Cir. 1988)
(holding removal authorized under All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §
1651(a), where real possibility that underlying Article 78
proceeding could be used to frustrate implementation of federal
court order designed to remedy racial discrimination in Yonkers),
cert, denied. 57 U.S.L.W. 3619 (1989).

Absent special circumstances, however, we remain dubious
as to the wisdom of a general rule permitting the removal of
Article 78 proceedings. Although several Article 78 proceedings
have been removed to courts in this circuit, this specific question
has never been addressed. Obviously, it could be argued that the
ability to remove such proceedings heretofore simply has been
assumed without the need for extended discussion. We are not so sure.

121
our remand authority. The Supreme Court has held that removed
actions generally may not be remanded except within the narrow
confines of the remand statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (i.e., that the
case was removed improvidently or without jurisdiction). Thermtrnn
Prod., Inc, v. Hermansdorfer. 423 U.S. 336, 345 & n. 9 (1976). The
Second Circuit, however, has found a practical exception to that
rule, concluding "that when the district court may properly abstain
from adjudicating a removed case, it has the power to remand the
case to state court." Corcoran v. Ardra Ins. Co.. 842 F.2d 31, 36-
37 (2d Cir. 1988). Accord Naylor v. Case and McGrath. Inc.. 585
F.2d 557, 565 (2d Cir. 1978). The exception, among other things,
is grounded in the reality that no purpose would be served by
retaining a removed case and then dismissing it on abstention
grounds, if applicable, rather than simply remanding the matter to
the appropriate state forum. Because the fingerprints of
federalism referenced earlier are so clearly discernible here, we
find abstention to be appropriate and we thus remand the matter in
accord with the remand exception outlined in Ardra Insurance.

c. Abstention
Jurisprudential limitations on our jurisdiction long ago

announced in Burford v. Sun Oil Co. , 319 U.S. 315 (1943) largely
control our view of this matter.

Burford, of course, involved a challenge to the validity of
state administrative action permitting the drilling of certain
wells in an east Texas oil field. The legal challenge was

122
initiated in federal court on grounds of diversity and federal
question (due process) ; the case at bar was removed to federal
court on the latter basis. In granting dismissal of the Burford
challenge in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, the Court
noted:

Although a federal equity court does have
jurisdiction of a particular proceeding, it
may, in its sound discretion, whether its
jurisdiction is invoked on ground of diversity
of citizenship or otherwise, "refuse to
enforce or protect legal rights, the exercise
of which may be prejudicial to the public
interest" fUnited States ex rel. Greathouse v.
Pern. 289 U.S. 352, 360 (1933)]; for it "is in
the public interest that federal courts of
equity should exercise their discretionary
power with proper regard for the rightful
independence of state governments in carrying
out their domestic policy." [Pennsylvania v.
Williams. 294 U.S. 176, 185 (1935).]

Burford. 319 U.S. at 317-18 (footnotes omitted). Those concerns
were found to be present in Burford. which involved important state
interests (the division of oil-drilling rights) that were the
subject of comprehensive state regulation.

The Second Circuit has distilled the principles underlying
Burford thusly:

rBurford1 abstention is appropriate when a
federal case presents a difficult issue of
state law, the resolution of which will have
a significant impact on important state
policies and for which the state has provided
a comprehensive regulatory system with
channels for review by state courts or
agencies. [Burford, 319 U.S.] at 333-34, 63
S. Ct. at 1107-08. In short, federal courts
should "abstain from interfering with
specialized, ongoing state regulatory
schemes."

123
Alliance of American Insurers v. Cuomo. 854 F.2d 591, 599 (2d Cir.
1988) (quoting Levy v. Lewis. 635 U.S. 960, 963 (2d Cir. 1980)).

In the case at bar, petitioners seek the incorporation of the
Village of Mayfair Knollwood, which requires a grant of state
authority. N.Y. Const, art. 10, § 1; Village Law § 2-200; l e .
McQuillen, The Law of Municipal Corporations §§ 1.19 & 2.07b (3d
ed. 1987) ("McQuillen11) . As Town Supervisor Veteran alluded to in
his December 1 Decision, the legal concept of village incorporation
was created to allow residents of a particular area the opportunity
to band together for the purposes of securing fire and police
protection and other public services, such as water and sewer.
December 1 Decision f 2, at 3-4. Given these uniquely local
interests, and particularly in an age of increasingly scarce
resources (both natural and fiscal), it would seem beyond
peradventure that the State of New York retains as profound an
interest in certifying village incorporation petitions as does the
State of Texas in certifying oil-drilling licenses. See especially
Gg.mil lion, 364 U.S. at 342 (recognizing "the breadth and
importance" of a State's power "to establish, destroy, or
reorganize by contraction or expansion its political subdivisions,
to wit, cities, counties, and other local units"); Hunter v. City
of— Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 176, 178-79 (1907) (noting creation
of municipal incorporations and definition of their size and nature
are matters peculiarly within jurisdiction of the States). Accord
1 McQuillen § 3.02, at 235; 2 McQuillen at §§ 4.03 & 7.03; C.
Rhyne, Municipa 1 Law §§ 2—2 & 2-26 (1957) . Thus, that as a g e n e r a l

124
proposition federal courts should not be muddying the waters in
which the village incorporation process swims seems to us an
unremarkable and inevitable conclusion.

Further, and acting partly as confirmation of the above state
interest, New York has established a "comprehensive regulatory
system with channels for review by state courts or agencies,"
American Insurers, 854 F.2d at 599, to assess the propriety of
village incorporation petitions:
* the statute specifically identifies what geographic areas may

be incorporated as a village, section 2-200 of the Village
Law;

* it spells out in elaborate detail who may petition for
incorporation and what the contents of the petition must
comprise, section 2-202;

* it establishes a public notice and hearing requirement once
a petition is filed with a town supervisor, again setting
forth in great detail the hearing requirements, section 2-204;

* it specifically notes what objections may be lodged against
a village petition, and how and when these objections should
be presented, section 2-206;
it sets forth a specific timetable for action on the petition
following hearing, and outlines the prerequisites for the
written decision that the town supervisor must issue on the
matter, section 2-208;
it specifically provides that review of a town supervisor's
decision may be had only by resort to an Article 78 proceeding
on grounds that the "decision is illegal, based on
insufficient evidence, or contrary to the weight of the
evidence," section 2-210(1);

* it requires that appeal via the Article 78 route must be taken
within 30 days from filing of the town supervisor's decision,
section 2-210(2), and that such appeal shall have preference
over all civil actions and proceedings, section 2-210(4)(e);

* it goes on to delineate the right to and procedures for
conducting an election to determine the question of
incorporation, sections 2-212 to 2-222;

125

* it sets forth the procedure for judicial review of an
incorporation election, and provides for a new election if the
original election is set aside, sections 2-224 to 2-230; and,
finally,

* it outlines the formalities of incorporating, the procedures
for electing and appointing officers, the conduct of village
meetings, the effect on public services, and the taxing
authority possessed by the village, sections 2-232 to 2-258.
If this does not constitute a comprehensive statutory scheme,

regulating in this case a matter within the fundamental
prerogatives of the state, then the court would be hard pressed to
identify such a scheme. Certainly, the scheme is as comprehensive
and the interest as strong as those existing in Levy, where the
Second Circuit directed abstention due to New York's "complex
administrative and judicial system for regulating and liquidating
domestic insurance companies." Levy. 635 F.2d at 963. To
paraphrase Burford. we think the regulation of village
incorporations so obviously involves a matter of uniquely state
policy that wise judicial discretion counsels in favor of avoiding
needless federal intervention in the state's affairs, especially
since a comprehensive regulatory scheme to address this matter has
been put in place. Burford. 319 U.S. at 332.

That this proceeding also implicates a federal question does
not alter our conclusion. Burford. too, involved a f e d e r a l

question but, as the Supreme Court noted, ultimate review of that
question before the Court was preserved fully by their action. IcL
at 334. Accord Levy. 635 F.2d at 964.

Moreover, the federal question here asserted may never n e e d

be reached. Four of the five challenges to the December 1 Decision

asserted in the Article 78 petition (claims (l)-(4), delineated
supra) involve challenges to the propriety of Veteran's actions
under the Village Law.11 Petitioners' counsel has represented that
certain of these questions — particularly those involving the
nature of the local hearing to be held on these matters, how and
what evidence can be received and relied upon, and the scope of the
town supervisor's statutory authority — appear to be matters of
unsettled state law. We have found little case law specifically
addressing the state issues here raised. If the December 1
Decision is reversed on any of these grounds, the First Amendment
assertion will not be reached. When unsettled questions of state
law are susceptible of an interpretation which may obviate the
federal constitutional question presented, the federal court should
defer on these questions — at least in the first instance — to
a state tribunal. Orozco v. Sobol. 703 F. Supp. 1113, 1121
(S.D.N.Y. 1989) (cases collected, including Railroad Comm'n of
Texas v. Pullman. 312 U.S. 496 (1941)). See also Levy. 635 F.2d
at 964 (since federal question was bound with state issues, best
left in the first instance to state courts with review available *

126

We add that the existence of these purely state
administrative issues places this case in a posture far different
from that found in Gomillion and cases like it, which constitute
straight constitutional challenges to gerrymandered municipal
boundary plans devised upon conclusion of the legislative or
administrative drafting processes. Had the instant incorporation
petition been approved under the Village Law, and the Deutsch
defendants (assuming they had standing) then challenged that action
in federal court on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, we have little
doubt that we properly would have jurisdiction over the subject
matter and that plaintiffs' choice of a federal forum would be
respected. That is not the posture of this case.

127
ultimately before the Supreme Court). These concerns militate
further in support of abstention. 12

As Levy concludes, in words equally applicable here:
The claims [in Burford] amounted to an attack
on the reasonableness of the state
administrative action. Thus federal review,
while involving decision of a federal
question, would have entailed a
reconsideration of the state administrative
decision, carrying with it the potential for
creating inequities in the administration of
the state scheme. Burford thus suggests that
proper respect for the expertise of state
officials and the expeditious and evenhanded

The Supreme Court has observed that the "various types
of abstention are not rigid pigeonholes into which federal courts
must ̂ try to fit cases. Rather, they reflect a complex of
considerations designed to soften the tensions inherent in a system
that contemplates parallel judicial processes." Pennzoil Co. v.
Texaco, Inc,, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 1526 n.9 (1987). Thus, although
this case is governed largely by Burford considerations, the
existence of Pullman concerns certainly is relevant.
Notwithstanding Pennzoil1s footnote 9, however, there do exist
important procedural differences between the "various types of
abstention." Pertinent here, we note that the product of Burford
abstention is dismissal, while under Pullman federal and state
issues ̂ may be bifurcated, with the federal court retaining
jurisdiction over the former and the litigants allowed the option
of returning to that forum to address the federal concerns
following state review. England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Medical
Examiners, 375 U.S. 411, 421-22 (1964). But see Harris County
Comm1rs Court v. Moore. 420 U.S. 77, 88 & n.14 (1975) (dismissal
in Pullman case appropriate if necessary to remove obstacles to
state court jurisdiction). It makes no sense to bifurcate the
federal and state issues in this case, especially since to do so
would potentially frustrate the Village Law's scheme of providing
for complete and expeditious review of incorporation petitions.
Further, consistent with the service requirements of section 2-
210(4)(b) of the Village Law, the costs of bringing a new Article
78 proceeding to address solely state issues would be substantial
(given the number of parties involved), arguably rendering that
"solution" inequitable. Since Burford concerns predominate in the
instant proceeding, we choose to keep the proceeding whole and
remand the entire matter to state court which, as was emphasized
in both Burford and Levy, is entirely competent to address the
First Amendment issue asserted here (if it need be reached).

128
administration of state programs counsels
restraint on the part of federal courts.

Lev^, 635 F.2d at 964. Here, Article 78 review under the Village
Law is designed to provide the aggrieved party with the opportunity
for expedited and confined judicial review of state administrative
action. That review is, in essence, largely an extension of the
administrative process itself given the reviewing court's limited
scope and remedial authority, and it is that forum which should be
deciding the state issues which predominate in this matter. If
federal questions are implicated in that process and improperly are
decided, ultimate review before the Supreme Court is preserved.
Abstention, therefore, is warranted here.

Conclusion
Assuming the general removability of Article 78 proceedings,

the instant matter involves a federal question and may be removed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Consistent with Ardra Insurance,
however, and because we would abstain from deciding the issues here
presented under familiar jurisprudential considerations, the
instant proceeding is remanded to the court from whence it was
removed, the New York Supreme Court for Westchester County.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: White Plains, N.Y.

April fq , 1989

GERARD L. GOETTEL
U.S.D.J.

129

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

Petitioners, 89 Civ. 0591 (GLG)
-against- NOTICE OF APPEAL

ANTHONY F. VETERAN, et al.,
Respondents.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that respondents Anthony F.
Veteran and Susan Tolchin appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the order in this
action dated April 17, 1989 and entered on April 18, 1989.
Dated: Elmsford, New York

May , 1989

P. O. Box 205
Elmsford, New York 10523
(914) 993-1546
Attorney for Respondents
Anthony F. Veteran and Susan Tolchin

130

TO:
LOVETT & GOULD
180 East Post Road
White Plains, New York 10601

Jonathan Lovett, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioners.

CUDDY & FEDER
90 Maple Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601

Ruth E. Roth, Esq.
Attorney for Respondents Keren Developments, Inc.,
and Robert Martin Company.

RUTH E. ROTH, ESQ. (Pro Se)
90 Maple Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019

Cameron Clark, Esq.
Jay L. Himes, Esq.
Melinda S. Levine, Esq.
William N. Gerson, Esq.
Of Counsel
Attorneys for Respondents Anita Jordan, April Jordan,
Latoya Jordan, Anna Ramos, Lizetta Ramos, Vanessa Ramos,
Gabriel Ramos, Thomas Myers, Lisa Myers, Thomas Myers, Jr.,
Linda Myers, Shawn Myers, and National Coalition for the
Homeless;

-and-
Local Counsel for Respondents Yvonne Jones, Odell A. Jones,
Melvin Dixon, Geri Bacon, Mary Williams, James Hodges and
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
Inc., White Plains/Greenburgh Branch.

131

JOYCE KNOX, ESQ.
NAACP, Inc.
4805 Mount Hope Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21215-3297

Attorney for Respondents Yvonne Jones, Odell A.
Jones, Melvin Dixon, Geri Bacon, Mary Williams, James
Hodges and National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, Inc., White Plains/Greenburgh Branch.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK '* irti e (u-L

......................................................................* 8 8
YVONNE JONES, ANITA JORDAN, APRIL :
JORDAN, LATOYA JORDAN, ANNA RAMOS,
LIZETTE RAMOS, VANESSA RAMOS, :
GABRIEL RAMOS, THOMAS MYERS,
LISA MYERS, THOMAS MYERS, JR., :
LINDA MYERS, SHAWN MYERS,
ODELL A. JONES, MELVIN DIXON, :
GERI BACON, MARY WILLIAMS,
JAMES HODGES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION :
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED
PEOPLE, INC., WHITE PLAINS/ :
GREENBURGH BRANCH, AND NATIONAL
COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, :

n v
V i i • '( la C?

U 1
«. Iit

NOV 1 1983

; E D . C , S P N 1

Plaintiffs, 88 Civ.
-against-

LAURENCE DEUTSCH, COLIN EDWIN
KAUFMAN, STEVEN NEIL GOLDRICH,
MICHAEL JAMES TONE, COALITION OF
UNITED PEOPLES, INC., and
ANTHONY F. VETERAN, as Supervisor
of the Town of Greenburgh,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, for their com
plaint, allege (on information and belief except as to
paragraphs 3-5, 8 , and 39-50):

Nature of the Action and Background
1. This action is brought by a number of black

citizens of Greenburgh, parents of homeless families in

13$

Westchester County, the National Association for the Advance
ment of Colored People, White Plains/Greenburgh Branch
("NAACP") and the National Coalition for the Homeless (the
"National Coalition") to obtain redress against a racially
motivated conspiracy formed by the defendants other than
Anthony Veteran (hereinafter the "Conspiring Defendants") for
the purpose of depriving racial minorities and homeless
persons of constitutional and statutory rights. The
Conspiring Defendants are residents of Westchester County who
have banded together to seek incorporation of a new, almost
totally segregated village. Their declared purpose is to
defeat a project to build housing for homeless families, most
of whom belong to racial minorities, by using the new
village's zoning power. In furtherance of this scheme, they
have drawn the village boundaries in a grotesque shape,
thereby attempting to ensure its all-white composition and to
guarantee attaining their racially exclusionary objective.
Defendants' conduct constitutes a conspiracy in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1985 that should be declared unlawful, enjoined,
and remedied, as against the Conspiring Defendants but not
defendant Veteran, by an appropriate award of monetary
damages.

2. This conspiracy is a direct attack on a
coordinated effort by state, county and municipal g o v e r n m e n t

— aided by a non-profit, charitable organization — to

134

establish safe and decent temporary housing for homeless
families with children in Westchester County. Westchester
County currently shelters approximately 957 families with
1978 children in a number of sub-standard facilities includ
ing motels in New York City and certain Hudson Valley coun
ties. Homeless persons, particularly children, are irrevoca
bly damaged by living conditions in those motels.
Westchester County is suffering from an unprecedented housing
crisis with a higher proportion of homeless families to its
population than even New York City.

Jurisdiction
3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and 1343. This action arises under the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States, the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973,
the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, the Fair Housing Act,
42 U.S.C. § 3604, the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 301
et sea., Article I, §§ 1 and 11, and Article XVII, § 1 of the
Constitution of the State of New York, §§ 40-c(l) and (2) of
the Civil Rights Law of the State of New York, § 291(2) of
the Executive Law of the State of New York, and §§ 62 and 131
of the Social Services Law of the State of New York, and
regulations promulgated thereunder. Declaratory relief is
authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

135

Venue
4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

All defendants reside in the Southern District of New York,
and the claim arose in that District.

Parties
5. The plaintiffs are the following:

a. Plaintiff Anita Jordan is a homeless
black woman who lives with her two children, April (age 18
months) and Latoya (age two and a half), in a single room at
the Elmsford Motor Lodge, 290 Tarrytown Road, Elmsford, New
York. The Jordan family was placed in the motel by
Westchester County.

b. Plaintiff Anna Ramos is a homeless white
woman who lives with her three children, Lizette (age
eleven), Vanessa (age five) and Gabriel (age one), in a
single room at the Coachman Hotel, 123 East Post Road, White
Plains, New York. The Ramos family was placed in the motel
by Westchester County.

c. Plaintiffs Thomas and Lisa Myers are a
homeless, black married couple who live with their three
children, Thomas, Jr. (age four), Linda (age three) and Shawn

(age two), in two small rooms at the Elmsford Motor Lodge,

136

290 Tarrytown Road, Elinsford, New York. The Myers family was
placed in the motel by Westchester County.

d. Plaintiff Yvonne Jones is a black home-
owner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed village
boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 118
North Evarts Avenue, Elmsford, New York for 35 years.

e. Plaintiff Odell A. Jones is a black
homeowner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed
village boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at
19 Van Buren Place, White Plains, New York for 27 years.

f. Plaintiff Geri Bacon is a black homeowner
who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed village
boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 16 Adams
Place, White Plains, New York for 33 years.

g. Plaintiff James Hodges is a black home-
owner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed village
boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 51 Cabot
Avenue, Elmsford, New York for two years.

h. Plaintiff Mary Williams is a black
homeowner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed
village boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at
179 Sears Avenue, Elmsford, New York for 28 years.

i. Melvin Dixon is a black homeowner who has
resided inside the proposed village boundary at 15 North
Lawrence Street, Elmsford, New York for 25 years.

137

j . Plaintiff NAACP is a branch of a
nonprofit membership association representing the interests
of approximately 500,000 members in 1,800 branches throughout
the United States. Since 1909, the association has sought
through the courts to establish and protect the civil rights
of minority citizens. NAACP's address is One Prospect
Avenue, White Plains, New York 10607.

k. Plaintiff National Coalition is a
not-for-profit organization incorporated under New York law.
Its primary purpose is to advocate responsible solutions to
end homelessness with an emphasis on establishing decent
housing for homeless persons. The National Coalition also
provides direct assistance in the form of rent subsidies,
food and legal counsel to homeless people. Its address is
105 East 22nd Street, New York, New York 10010.

6 . The Conspiring Defendants are natural persons,
and each has the following address:

Laurence Deutsch

Colin Edwin Kaufman

Steven Neil Goldrich

Michael James Tone

211 Wood Hampton Drive
White Plains, New York 10603
8 Hartford Road
(a/k/a/ Hartford Lane)
White Plains, New York 10603
128 North Hampton Drive
White Plains, New York 10603
19 Chelsea Road
White Plains, New York 10607

138

7. Defendant Coalition of United Peoples, Inc.
("COUP") is a not-for-profit corporation that purports to
have been organized under the laws of the State of New York.
Its members are real property owners who reside in the
vicinity of the proposed homeless housing site.

8 . Defendant Anthony F. Veteran is the Town
Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh and is named as a
defendant in that capacity.

Co-Conspirators
9. Various other persons not made defendants in

this action participated as co-conspirators with defendants
in the violations set forth below, and performed acts and
made statements in furtherance thereof.

Factual Background
The West HELP Development

10. West H.E.L.P., Inc. (Homeless Emergency
Leverage Program, Inc.) ("West HELP") is a not-for-profit
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
York. One of West HELP'S purposes is the construction of
housing for homeless persons in the State of New York.

1 1 . The County of Westchester (the "County") is a
municipal corporation existing pursuant to the laws of the
State of New York. The County is located in the Southern
District of New York.

139

12. The Town of Greenburgh (the •'Town") is a
municipal corporation existing pursuant to the laws of the
State of New York. The Town is located within the County.

13. Homeless families in Westchester County
presently are quartered at great public expense in often
squalid motel rooms. A parent with a number of children
typically is allotted a single room.

14. A number of homeless families in the County
are sheltered in motels that are far from their communities
of origin. This aggravates the devastating impact of
homelessness by disrupting relationships with schools,
neighbors, relatives and other social and economic supports.

15. In or about October 1987, the County and West
HELP jointly proposed the establishment of several housing
developments for homeless families with children in the
County.

16. In or about January 1988, the Town offered to
have established within its boundaries one of those develop
ments (the "West HELP Development"). The Town, together with
West HELP, proposed as the site for the housing approximately
30 acres of land, presently owned by the County, situated in
the Town (the "Development Site"). In April 1988, the Town,
by unanimous resolution of its supervisor and council
members, expressed support for the West HELP Development and

140

requested that the County conduct the required environmental
review.

17. The West HELP Development is intended to
provide safe, economical and humane emergency shelter to
homeless families with children.

18. The West HELP Development would provide
•'transitional" housing for homeless families pending their
establishment of more permanent homes. As planned, it would
consist of six two-story buildings with approximately 18
housing units in each. A seventh building would be con
structed to house day care, counseling, and selected social
services for the benefit of those lodged at the Development
Site. The West HELP Development is widely regarded as a
model in the provision of cost-effective, decent transitional
housing to homeless families with children.

19. The West HELP Development also includes the
following proposals, among others:

a. The County would lease the site to West
HELP for the period of construction plus ten years.

b. West HELP would secure construction and
permanent financing for the West HELP Development from the
sale of tax exempt bonds issued by a public benefit agency
created under New York law. The bonds would be amortized
over a 10 year period, after which control of the Development

141

Site would revert to the government subject to a requirement
that it continue to have a housing-related use.

c. The County would enter into an agreement
with West HELP for the placement of homeless families with
children in the West HELP Development. Under this agreement,
West HELP would receive a funding stream sufficient to cover
operating costs as well as amortization and debt service of
the bonds used to finance the West HELP Development.

20. A majority of the homeless persons in the
County are members of racial minorities. Such persons are
among the intended and expected beneficiaries of the West
HELP Development.

Formation of the Conspiracy
21. In early 1988, defendant Deutsch, together

with others presently unknown to plaintiffs, formed COUP.
Defendant COUP'S purpose is to stop the West HELP
Development. Defendant Deutsch is COUP'S president.

22. On or about February 11, 1988, Defendant
Deutsch participated in a meeting held at the Valhalla High
School in the County, at which there was discussion of means
to oppose the West HELP Development. Later that same month,
Defendant Deutsch publicly announced that he and other Town
residents intended to prepare a petition, pursuant to the
Village Law of the State of New York, to incorporate a new

142

village — to be called "Mayfair Krsollwood" — within the
Town. As envisioned, the geographic boundaries of Mayfair
Knollwood were to include the Development Site.

23. Defendant Deutsch and his co-conspirators
intend to use the incorporation of Mayfair Knollwood to block
the West HELP Development. As Defendant Deutsch reportedly
has put it:

We'll go ahead with secession and take a nice piece of
taxable property with us.

The "secession" plan was and is racially motivated. As
Defendant Deutsch was quoted as stating in opposing the West
HELP Development:

You're taking a piece of a ghetto and dumping it some
where else to get another ghetto started.

24. Thereafter in 1988, a petition for incorpora
tion of the proposed Village of Mayfair Knollwood was pre
pared and the process of circulating the petition for signa
ture, pursuant to the Village Law of the State of New York,
began (the "Petition"). As charted in the Petition, the
proposed Village of Mayfair Knollwood includes the Develop
ment Site.

25. Defendant Deutsch participated in preparing
the Petition, approved it, and assisted in its circulation.
Defendants Kaufman, Goldrich and Tone agreed, in the
Petition, to accept service of all papers in connection with
a proceeding for incorporation.

143

26. The proposed boundary for Mayfair Knollwood is
an irregular, multi-sided configuration designed by the
Conspiring Defendants and their co-conspirators for the
manifest purpose of excluding minority residents of the Town.
The shape of the proposed Village and its purpose and effect
to exclude racial minorities are shown on the map attached as
Exhibit 1.

27. Just as the proposed boundary of Mayfair
Knollwood was drawn in an effort to exclude racial minori
ties, so too was it drawn in an effort to secure for Mayfair
Knollwood a disproportionate part of the tax base and recrea
tional and undeveloped land area of the Town.

28. Defendant COUP, the Conspiring Defendants and
their co-conspirators seek unlawfully to gerrymander the
proposed boundaries of Mayfair Knollwood so as to (a) exclude
racial minorities from the proposed village, (b) appropriate,
to the detriment of Town residents not within the proposed
Mayfair Knollwood boundary, essential municipal resources,
facilities, and amenities, and (c) appropriate a major
proportion of the Town's undeveloped land with the purpose
and effect of fostering racial segregation in housing.

29. Prior to September 14, 1988, hundreds of Town
residents signed the Petition, thereby evidencing their
support of the conspiracy to violate plaintiffs' rights.

144

30. On or about September 14, 1988, defendant
Deutsch and other co-conspirators formally presented the
Petition to the Town. A contemporaneous news report stated
the following:

"The incorporation is a fact," Coalition ri.e. COUP]
President Laurence Deutsch said. "The town may delay
us, but it won't stop us. There is nothing that the
town or county could do which could divert us from the
incorporation."

The Position of Defendant Veteran
31. Defendant Veteran, as Town Supervisor of the

Town of Greenburgh, is governed in the performance of his
duties by the Constitutions and laws of the United States and
the State of New York.

32. The procedure that Defendant Veteran must
follow in the processing of the COUP Petition is set forth in
the Village Law of New York. That statute provides, in
summary, for:

a. a hearing on the Petition at which its
compliance with statutorily specified technical requirements
is examined? the statute does not expressly direct Defendant
Veteran to consider whether the Petition is consistent with
the Constitutions of the United States or New York, or their
laws;

b. within a specified time, a decision on
the Petition;

145

c. thereafter, in the event the decision is
favorable, a vote on the proposed incorporation by those
within the boundaries set forth in the Petition; and

d. in the event of a majority vote in favor,
incorporation of the new village as proposed in the Petition.

33. Following presentation of the Petition to the
Town on or about September 14, 1988, Defendant Veteran
initiated the procedures described in paragraph 32 above by
scheduling a hearing for November 1, 1988.

34. Defendant Veteran is and has been an outspoken
supporter of the West HELP Development and has consistently
opposed the plan of COUP and the Conspiring Defendants to
incorporate the village of Mayfair Knollwood for the purpose
of blocking the West HELP Development.

35. Defendant Veteran swore an oath in taking the
office of Town Supervisor, pursuant to Article XIII, § 1 of
the New York Constitution and section 25 of the New York Town
Law, as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support_the
constitution of the United States and the constitution
of the State of New York . . . .

Approval by Defendant Veteran of the Petition, with its
racially discriminatory purpose and effect and its breach of
the numerous constitutional and statutory provisions set
forth in paragraphs 39 through 48 below, would constitute a
breach of Defendant Veteran's oath of office.

146

36. Notwithstanding the foregoing, COUP and the
Conspiring Defendants assert that Defendant Veteran has no
authority to deny the Petition on any ground other than
technical non-compliance with the specific mandates of the
Village Law, and Defendant Veteran has initiated the proce
dures thereunder for consideration of the Petition.

37. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Veteran may
not, consistent with his oath of office, proceed with the
Petition in any manner whatsoever.

38. There exists a justiciable case or controversy
between the parties concerning their rights and obligations
as set forth above.

Constitutional and Statutory Background
39. In pertinent part, the Fourteenth Amendment of

the Constitution of the United States provides that:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States? nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty or property without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

40. In pertinent part, the Fifteenth Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States provides that:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of race, color, or previous condition
of servitude.

147

41. In pertinent part, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 provides
that:

No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or
standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or
applied by any state or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the
right of any citizen of the United States to vote on
account of race or color . . . .

42. In pertinent part, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) pro
vides that it shall be unlawful "to refuse to . . . otherwise
make available or deny a dwelling to any person because of
race, [or] color. . . . "

43. In pertinent part, Article I, § 1 of the
Constitution of the State of New York provides that:

No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or
deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to
any citizen thereof, . . . unless by law of the land, or
the judgment of his peers. . . .

44. In pertinent part, Article I, § 11 of the
Constitution of the State of New York provides that:

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the
laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No
person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion,
be subjected to any discrimination in his civil rights
by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or
institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivi
sion of the state.

45. Section 40-c(l) of the New York Civil Rights
Law provides that:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the state shall
be entitled to the equal protection of the laws of this
state or any subdivision thereof.

148

46. In pertinent part, Section 40-c(2) of the New
York Civil Rights Law provides that:

No person shall, because of race, . . . be subjected to
any discrimination in his civil rights, . . . by any
other persons or by any firm, corporation or institu
tion, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of
the state.

47. In pertinent part, Section 291(2) of the
New York Executive Law (Human Rights Law) provides that:

The opportunity to obtain education, the use of places
of public accommodation and the ownership, use and
occupancy of housing accommodations and commercial space
without discrimination because of . . . race . . . is
hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.

48. The Federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 301 et sea.. guarantees all homeless families in the State
of New York safe and decent emergency housing.

49. Article XVII, § 1 of the Constitution of the
State of New York provides as follows:

The aid, care and support of the needy are public
concerns and shall be provided by the state and by such
of its subdivisions, and in such manner and by such
means, as the legislature may from time to time deter
mine .

Thus, in New York State, the provision of assistance to the
needy is not a matter of legislative grace? rather, it is
specifically mandated by the State Constitution.
Sections 62(1) and 131 of the New York Social Services Law
charge social service districts, such as the County, with the
responsibility to provide public assistance and care for
persons unable to provide for themselves.

149

50. Plaintiffs are persons protected by and having
enforceable rights under the provisions set out in paragraphs
39 through 49 above.

The Violation of Plaintiffs1 Rights and Injury
51. Beginning in or about February 1988 and

continuing thereafter to the present, the Conspiring
Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a conspiracy
in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); defendant Veteran is a
participant in the conspiracy because he has initiated the
procedure on the Petition called for by the Village Law. The
conspiracy includes a continuing agreement, understanding and
concert of action for the purpose of:

a. Depriving, either directly or indirectly,
a person or class of persons — racial minority citizens
of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges
and immunities under the laws set forth above;

b. Preventing or hindering duly constituted
authorities of the State of New York. — the County and the
Town -- from giving or securing to all persons, including
racial minorities, in such State the equal protection of the
laws.

52. As set forth in paragraphs 21 through 30
above, the Conspiring Defendants did, or caused to be done,
acts in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged; as set fo r th

150

in paragraph 33 above, defendant Veteran did, or caused to be
done, an act in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged.

53. Plaintiffs have been injured in their person
or property or deprived of having and exercising rights and
privileges of a citizen of the United States, and have
thereby suffered and are threatened with irreparable injury,
including but not limited to the injury to homeless adults
and children caused by the denial of safe and decent emer
gency shelter.

54. Plaintiffs have sustained monetary damages in
amounts presently unknown.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count I

55. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 54.
56. Defendants, by their acts, have conspired and

are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3),
to abridge the voting rights of plaintiffs Yvonne Jones,
Odell A. Jones, Melvin Dixon, Geri Bacon, Mary Williams and
James Hodges in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, the Voting Rights Act of
1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, Article I, §§ 1 and 11 of the
New York Constitution, and §§ 40-c(l) and (2) of the New York
Civil Rights Law.

151

Count II
57. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 54.
58. Defendants, by their acts, have conspired and

are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)',
to violate and have violated the housing rights of plaintiffs
Anita Jordan, April Jordan, Latoya Jordan, Anna Ramos,
Lizette Ramos, Vanessa Ramos, Gabriel Ramos, Thomas Myers,
Thomas Myers, Jr., Linda Myers and Shawn Myers in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, Article I,
§ 11 and Article XVII, § 1 of the New York Constitution,
§§ 40-c(1) and (2) of the New York Civil Rights Law, and
§ 291(2) of the Executive Law of the State of New York.

Count III
59. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 54.
60. Defendants, by their acts, have conspired and

are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3),
to abridge the rights of plaintiffs Anita Jordan, April
Jordan, Latoya Jordan, Anna Ramos, Lizette Ramos, Vanessa
Ramos, Gabriel Ramos, Thomas Myers, Thomas Myers, Jr., Linda
Myers and Shawn Myers to safe and lawful emergency shelter m
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States, the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301
et sea.. Article I, § 11 and Article XVII, § 1 of the New

152

York Constitution, and §§ 62(1) and 131 of the New York
Social Services Law and the regulations promulgated
thereunder.

Count IV
61. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 54.
62. a. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution

of the United States provides as follows:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be
the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

b. Article XIII, § 1 of the Constitution of
the State of New York provides as follows:

[A]11 officers, executive and judicial . . . shall . . .
take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
constitution of the United States and the constitution
of the State of New York . . ."

c. Section 25 of the New York Town Law
provides as follows: "[E]very town officer shall take and
subscribe . . . the constitutional oath of office. . . . "

63. Under the constitutional provisions set forth
above, defendant Veteran has a duty to uphold federal and
state law. Moreover, in assuming his office as Town Super
visor, defendant Veteran swore an oath to uphold the
Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State
of New York.

153

64. Pursuant to New York Village Law §§ 2-204,
206, 208, defendant Veteran has certain duties to hold a
hearing and to render a decision with respect to the
Petition, either favorably (in which case the Petition would
be submitted for a vote by the electorate) or adversely (in
which case there would be no vote). Thus far, he has not
rendered that decision.

65. As set forth in paragraphs 31 through 38
above, there is a justiciable controversy between plaintiffs
and defendants as to their respective rights and obligations
under the foregoing Constitutional and statutory provisions.

Relief Sought
Accordingly, plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:
1. As to Counts I through III:

a. Declaring that defendants have c o n s p i r e d

in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3);
b. Directing entry of a permanent injunction

restraining defendants from continuing their unlawful con
spiracy, including, but not limited to, pursuing any further
proceedings with respect to the Petition to incorporate the
proposed Village of Mayfair Knollwood;

c. Awarding plaintiffs monetary damages in
such amount as may be proven at trial;

154

d. Awarding plaintiffs their reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements incurred in the
prosecution of this action.

2. As to Count IV, declaring that defendant
Veteran has the right and obligation, under the Constitution
and laws of the United States and the State of New York, to
deny or to refuse to proceed further with the Petition.

3. As to all Counts, directing such other and
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: Greenburgh, N.Y.

November 1, 1988
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON

By. y . ̂
Cameron Clark ^

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, N.Y. 10019
(212) 373-3000

Of Counsel,
Robert M. Hayes
Virginia G. Schubert
COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS
105 East 22nd Street
New York, N.Y. 10010
(212) 460-8110
Andrew M. Cuomo
2 Park Avenue
Suite 1415
New York, N.Y. 10016
(212) 686-1000

Edward Hailes, Jr.
NAACP, Inc.
260 Fifth Avenue
New York, N.Y.
(212) 481-4100
Julius L. Chambers
John Charles Boger
Sherrilyn Ifill
99 Hudson Street
New York, N.Y. 10013
(212) 219-1900

- c .4TJ/ ' ■' ; 155
;r

-"'ii. ‘T " - -

' : , ■ "Y-%, -: ii«a* . v;- 'OiT .s?vA ̂ .. 'v» • "'2* "'̂4, v̂j'
" ' a * / -v * > .. > T ^
X I ' / V ' ^ -s i- 'A r-—---

rd
*v.:^ •../,

,• >* **, -/ ̂ ___- • ̂ t

UA:

\ v

PROPOSED
BOUNDARY OF
VILLAGE

MULTI-RACIAL
HOUSING

t ! £ M * r n

, 1: ' --I7/:/' i " | ] 4

TOWN OF GREESBUR
Weuckntrr C***0 S o * * * *

-}fM ch=--^

EXHIBIT 1

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Veteran v. Greenberg Appendix

Impact area

Topic

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in