Greenberg v. Veteran Amended Verified Petition

    I

P A U L ,  W E I S S ,  R I F K I N D ,
1 2 8 5  A V E N U E  O F  T H E  A M E R I C A S

T E L E P H O N E  ( 2 1 2 )  3 7 3 - 3 0 0 0  

T E L E C O P IE R  ( 2 1 2 )  7 5 7 - 3 9 9 0  

T E L E X  W U I 6 6 6 - 8 4 3

R A N D O L P H  E. P A U L  ( 1 9 4 6 - 1 9 5 6 )
L O U IS  S. W E IS S  ( 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 5 0 )
J O H N  F. W H A R T O N  ( 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 7 7 )

A D R IA N  W. D E W IN D  
L L O Y D  K. G A R R IS O N  
JO S E P H  S. IS E M A N  
J A M E S  B. LE W IS  
P A U L  J. N E W LO N  
M O R D E C A I R O C H L IN  
H O W A R D  A. S E IT Z  
S A M U E L  J . S IL V E R M A N  
N O R M A N  Z E L E N K O  
C O U N S E L

D O M IN IQ U E  F A R G U E **
E U R O P E A N  C O U N S E L

W R IT E R  S  D IR E C T  D I A L  N U M B E R

W H A R T O N i S  G A R R I S O N

NEW Y O R K . NEW Y O R K  1 O 01  9 - 6 0 6 4I
1 6 1 5  L  S T R E E T . N. W. 

W A S H IN G T O N . D. C . 2 0 0 3 6 - 5 6 9 4  
T E L E P H O N E  ( 2 0 2 )  2 2 3 - 7 3 0 0  

T E L E C O P IE R  ( 2 0 2 )  2 2 3 - 7 4 2 0  
T E L E X  2 4 8 2 3 7  PW A UR

1 9 9 . B O U L E V A R D  S A IN T  G E R M A IN  

7 5 0 0 7  P A R IS . F R A N C E  
T E L E P H O N E  ( 3 3 - 1 )  4 5  4 9 . 3 3 . 8 5  

T E L E C O P IE R  ( 3 3 - 1 )  4 2 . 2 2 . 6 4 . 3 8  
T E L E X  2 0 3 1 7 8 F

2 0 0 8  TW O  E X C H A N G E  S Q U A R E  
8  C O N N A U G H T  P L A C E . C E N T R A L  

H O N G  K O N G  
T E L E P H O N E  ( 8 5 2 )  5 - 2 2 0 0 4 1  
T E L E C O P IE R  ( 8 5 2 )  5 - 8 6 8 0 1 2 4  

T E L E X  H X 6 6 2 0 8

A K A S A K A  T W IN  TO W E R  
1 7 -2 2 . A K A S A K A  2 -C H O M E  

M IN A T O — K U . T O K Y O  1 0 7 . JA P A N  
T E L E P H O N E  ( 8 1 - 3 )  5 0 5 - 0 2 9 1  

T E L E C O P IE R  ( 8 1 - 3 )  5 0 5 - 4 5 4 0  
T E L E X  0 2 4 2 8 1 2 0  PW R W G T

N E A L E  M . A L B E R T  
M A R K  H. A L C O T T  
A L L A N  J . A R F F A  
D A N IE L  J . B E L L E R  
M A R K  A B E L N IC K  
A L L A N  B L U M S T E IN  
R IC H A R D  S. B O R IS O F F  
J O H N  F. B R E G L IO  
D A V ID  C. B R O D H E A D  
R IC H A R D  J . B R O N S T E IN  
JO S E P H  E. B R O W D Y  
C A M E R O N  C L A R K  
L E W IS  R. C L A Y T O N  
J A Y  C O H E N  
JE R O M E  A L A N  C O H E N  
ED W A R D  N. C O S T IK Y A N  
J A M E S  M. D U B IN  
L E S L IE  G O R D O N  F A G E N  
PETER  L . F E L C H E R  
G E O R G E  P. F E L L E M A N  
B E R N A R D  F IN K E L S T E IN  
M IT C H E L L  S. F IS H M A N  
R O B E R T  C. F L E D E R  
M A R T IN  F L U M E N B A U M  
T E R E N C E  J . F O R T U N E * 
M AX G IT T E R  
R IC H A R D  D. G O L D S T E IN  
B E R N A R D  H . G R E E N E  
JA Y  G R E E N F IE L D  
G A IN E S  G W A T H M E Y . I l l  
P E TE R  R. H A JE  
A L B E R T  P. H A N D  
G E R A R D  E. H A R P E R  
S E Y M O U R  H E R T Z  
R O B E R T  M. H IR S H  
J A M IE  P. H O R S L E Y * 
A R T H U R  K A L IS H  
LE W IS  A. K A P L A N  
A N T H O N Y  B K U K L IN  
JE R O M E  K U R T Z  
S T E V E N  E. L A N D E R S

R O B E R T  L . L A U F E R  
W A LT E R  F. L E IN H A R D T  
A R T H U R  L . L IM A N  
M A R T IN  L O N D O N  
J O H N  P M C E N R O E  
C O L L E E N  M C M A H O N  
R O B E R T  E M O N T G O M E R Y . JR . 
R O B E R T  H. M O N T G O M E R Y . JR . 
D O N A L D  F. M O O R E  
M A T T H E W  N IM E T Z  
K E V IN  J. O B R IE N  
L IO N E L  H. O L M E R *
J O H N  J. O 'N E IL  
S T U A R T  I. O R A N  
M A R C  E. P E R L M U T T E R  
J A M E S  L . P U R C E L L  
L E O N A R D  V. Q U IG L E Y  
C A R E Y  R. R A M O S  
C A R L  L. R E IS N E R  
S IM O N  H. R IF K IN D  
S T U A R T  R O B IN O W IT Z  
S ID N E Y  S. R O S D E IT C H E R  
R IC H A R D  A. R O S E N  
S T E V E N  B. R O S E N F E L D  
P E T E R  J . R O T H E N B E R G  
E R N E S T  R U B E N S T E IN  
T E R R Y  E. S C H IM E K  
J O H N  A. S IL B E R M A N  
M O S E S  S IL V E R M A N  
E IL E E N  S. S IL V E R S  
S T E V E N  S IM K IN  
R O B E R T  S. S M IT H  
M A R IL Y N  S O B E L  
T H E O D O R E  C. S O R E N S E N  
J O H N  C . T A Y L O R . 3RD 
A L L E N  L . T H O M A S  
J U D IT H  R. T H O Y E R  
J A Y  T O P K I$
J O S E  E. T R IA S  
D A V ID  T . W A S H B U R N  
A L F R E D  D. Y O U N G W O O D

•N O T  A D M IT T E D  T O  N E W  Y O R K  B A R . 
• •C O N S E IL  J U R ID IQ U E  IN  F R A N C E  O N L Y .

(212) 373-3234 December 26, 1989

John Charles Boger, Esq.
99 Hudson Street
New York, New York 10013

Robert M. Hayes, Esq. 
O'Melveny & Myers 
Citicorp Center 
153 East 53rd Street 
Room 5314
New York, New York 10022

Andrew M. Cuomo, Esq.
12 East 33rd Street 
6th Floor
New York, New York 10016

Greenberg

Dear Counsel:

Joyce Knox, Esq.
NAACP, Inc.
4805 Mount Hope Drive 
Baltimore, MD 21215-3297

v. Veteran

I enclose an amended Article 78 petition that I 
just received from Lovett. We will review the new pleading, 
and confer with counsel for the Town Supervisor and other 
objectors regarding the next steps.

If anyone has comments, by all means call me.

Best regards for the holidays.

Enclosure

BY HAND and FEDERAL EXPRESS



LOVETT & GOULD
A T T O R N E Y S  A T  L A W

JONATHAN LOVETT 180 EAST POST ROAD

JANE BILUS GOULD WHIT E PLAIN S, N Y. 1060

CHRISTINE KNEPPER WOLFF 914-428-8401

ALSO MEMBER OF D C & MD BARS FAX 914 428-8916

MARY LOVETT NITSC H

OF COUNSEL December 19, 1989

Paul Agresta, Esq.
Town of Greenburgh 
P.0. Box 205
Elmsford, New York 10523
Ruth Roth, Esq.
Cuddy & Feder
90 Maple Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601
Jay L. Himes, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton 
& Garrison
1285 Avenue of the Americas 
New York, New York 10019

Re: In the Matter of the Application of
Myles Greenberg and Frances M. Mulligan 
v. Anthony F. Veteran, et al.,
89 Civ. 0591 ( GLG)________________________

Dear Counsel:
Enclosed is a Amended Verified Petition in the above- 

captioned matter. When you have reviewed same, kindly contact me 
so that we can agree upon a schedule for responsive pleadings, 
discovery and related matters.

In addition, since I believe that some of the predicates for 
Supervisor Veteran's December 1, 1988 decision are entirely 
lacking, I also suggest that we set up a meeting with a view 
towards narrowing the issues to be tried.

Very truly yours

Jonathan Lovett
' /

JL/js
enc .



LOVETT & GOULD
a t t o r n e y s  a t  l a w

JONATHAN LOVETT 

JANE BILUS GOULD

CHRISTINE KNEPPER WOLFF
ALSO MEMBER OF D C AM D  BARS

MARY LOVETT NITSCH 

OF COUNSEL

b y  h a n d

180 EAST POST ROAD 

WHIT E PLAIN S. N Y. 10601

914428-8401 

FAX 914-428-8916

D e c e m b e r  19, 1989

Hon Gerard L. Goettel
District Judge
n S District Court
Southern District o£ New York
101 East Post Road
White Plains, New York 10601

R e = in the Matter ° ‘ ^ e  Application of
Myles Greenberg and Frances n 
v. Anthony F. Veteran, et a l .,
89 Civ- 0591 _____________________________

Dear Judge Goettel:
Enclosed, with p r o o f ^ ^ " c a p t l ^ e ^ a c t ^ ^ T ^ ^ i g ^ n a l  is

s “ “ “ >
Very truly y o u r s ,

Jonathan Lovett

JL/ js

enc • 
cc: All Counsel



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------
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 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:

JURISDICTION

1. This is a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the New 
York State Civil Practice Law and Rules, Section 2-210 of the New 
York State Village Law, and 42 U.S.C. §1983, 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 upon 

insufficient evidence, and/or is contrary to the weight of the 

evidence. Declaratory relief is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

89 Civ. 0591 (GLG) 

AMENDED
VERIFIED PETITION

1



§§2201 and 2202. No compensatory or punitive damages are sought 
herein in light of Giano v. Flood, 803 F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1986) 
and Davidson v. Capuano, 792 F.2d 275 (2d Cir. 1986).

THE PARTIES

2. Petitioners 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. 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 were made parties to this 
proceeding.

2



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, 
New York.

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; in so stating Respondent 
Veteran, while acting under color and pretense of law, was 
motivated by selfish political objectives, a calculated design to 
impede Petitioners' exercise of their right to vote, of free 
speech and free association, and a deliberate objective of 
chilling the future exercise of such rights by Petitioners and 

others similarly situated.

3



10. Upon information and belief 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 the conclusion of said 
public hearing Respondent Veteran announced that he was 
adjourning the hearing until November 21, 1988, solely for the 
purpose of his receiving written comments regarding the 
incorporation petition.

12. 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 completeness of 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 §2-202(1)(c )(2); the only 
unsworn purported objection with respect to said list was 

conclusorily made on the ground that the list was over-inclusive 
since two unidentified persons whose names allegedly appeared on 
the list had supposedly died and two other unidentified persons 
whose names allegedly appeared on the list had supposedly moved.

13. 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; the only

4



unsworn purported objection pertaining to supposed 
representations made to signatories to the petition was the 
conclusory claim that a total of five persons were induced to 
sign the petition for incorporation on the basis of a truthful 
representation that the petition was intended to cause the 
conduct of a referendum.

14. 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 and/or its proponents would exclude and/or try to exclude 
and/or intended to exclude from the village's boundaries housing 

for the homeless.

15. Upon information and belief after the close of the public 
portion of said hearing an unsworn and conclusory objection was 
made, without benefit of any supporting documentation, on five 
purported grounds with respect to the authenticity of one hundred 
and twenty-five signatures on the petition to incorporate:

a. Ground #1 was predicated upon a claim that eleven 
signatories to the petition to incorporate supposedly were not 

registered to vote.

b. Ground #2 was predicated upon a claim that fifty-one 

signatures supposedly did not match those on record with the 

Westchester County Board of Elections.

5



c. Ground #3 was predicated upon a claim that forty-four 
signatures supposedly were invalid since those signatories had 
failed to sign their signature on the front side of their voter 
registration card on file with the said Board of Elections.

d. Ground #4 was predicated upon a claim that three 
signatures were supposedly illegible.

e. Ground #5 was predicated upon a claim that sixteen 
signatures were illegal because no voter registration card 
supposedly could be located at said Board of Elections for any of 
those signatories.

16. Upon information and belief, even if the one hundred 
twenty-five signatures challenged in the objection referred to in 
paragraph "15" supra were illegal, there remain unchallenged more 
than enough lawful signatures to constitute a valid petition for 
incorporation since there were nine hundred twenty-eight 
residents in the territory of the proposed village who were 
qualified to vote for Town officers and, in accordance with 
Village Law §2-202(1)(a )(1), only one hundred eighty-six valid 
signatures were thus required.

17. Upon information and belief the objection referred to in 
paragraph "15" supra was frivolous since:

6



a. Five of the eleven signatories identified in Ground 
#1 [paragraph 15(a), supra) are registered to vote according to 
certified records of the said Board of Elections.

b. Of the fifty-one signatories identified in Ground #2 
[paragraph 15(b), supra 1;

i. Forty-two signatures are identical to the 
signatures contained on those persons' voter registration cards 
as certified by the Board of Elections, with the irrelevant 
inclusion or exclusion on the petition to incorporate of inter 
siia a middle initial and/or reference to "Jr."

ii. Eight signatures are identical to the signatures 
contained on those persons' voter registration cards as certified 
by the said Board of Elections, and

iii. Only one signatory was apparently not registered
to vote.

c. With respect to the forty-four signatures identified 
in Ground #3 [paragraph 15(c), supra 1:

i. The voter registration cards of forty-three of 
the subject signatories, as certified by the Board of Elections, 
all bear the voters' signatures on the reverse side of the card 

in the space designated [N.Y. Election Law 5-500(5)] for entry of 
that signature at the time the voter was registered to vote.

7



ii. The voter registration card of the remaining 

signatory, as certified by the said Board of Elections, is 

clearly endorsed as a duplicate since the original card had 

apparently been misplaced.

d. Of the three signatures identified in Ground #4 
[paragraph 15(d), supra 1, each one matches that voter's signature 
as it appears on the certified records of the said Board of 
Elections.

e. Of the sixteen signatures identified in Ground #5 
[paragraph 15(e), supra 1, all but two are the signatures of duly 

registered voters whose signatures appear on their respective 
voter registration cards as certified by the said Board of 
Elections.

18. Upon information and belief after the close of the public 
portion of said hearing an unsworn objection was made by the Town 
Engineer of the Town of Greenburgh challenging, as lacking in 
common certainty, the boundary of the proposed village as set 
forth in the petition to incorporate; said objection was 
predicated upon the false pretense that such a description as a 
matter of law must exclusively be written in terms of metes and 
bounds.

8



19. Upon information and belief, the objection referred to in 
paragraph "18" supra was prepared by the said Town Engineer in 
his capacity as such, at the direction of Respondent Veteran, at 
the expense and upon equipment provided by the Town of Greenburgh 
and during time for which said Engineer was compensated by said 
Town.

20. Upon information and belief, the purported factual 
predicates for the objection referred to in paragraph "18" supra 
are without merit as testimony to be adduced before this Court in 
accordance with Village Law 2-210(1) will reveal since inter 
alia:

a. The boundary description contained in a petition to 
incorporate under the Village Law need not be drafted in terms of 
metes and bounds.

b. The description contained in the subject petition to 
incorporate defines a contiguous boundary with common certainty.

21. Upon information and belief, after the close of the 
public portion of said hearing an objection was made to the 
proposed village's boundary line on the ground that it was 
supposedly drawn to exclude areas of minority population.

22. Upon information and belief, the objection referred to in 

paragraph "21" supra was prepared by the Director of Community

9



Development for the Town of Greenburgh in her capacity as such, 
upon the direction of Respondent Veteran, and during times for 
which she was compensated by the Town; said objection was 
prepared inter alia upon the basis of a map of the boundary of 
the proposed village which map was prepared from the boundary 
description contained in the incorporation petition by officials 
and/or employees of the Town of Greenburgh on Town equipment, 
during Town business hours, and at Town expense.

23. Upon information and belief the purported factual 
predicates for the objection referred to in paragraph "21" are 
false as will be shown by the evidence to be adduced before the 
Court pursuant to Village Law §2-210(1) since inter alia:

a. No areas were excluded from the boundary because of
race.

b. The boundary was substantially drawn on the basis of 
pre-existing municipal corporate boundaries, streets, a railroad 
right-of-way and, inter alia, other proper geographic 
considerations.

c. No disparate impact upon minorities was intended; no 
such impact will result.

24. Upon information and belief by decision dated December 1, 
1988, Respondent Veteran determined that the petition to

10



incorporate was legally insufficient on the following six 
grounds, with respect to none of which had any notice previously 
been given to Petitioners:

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 within the boundaries of the proposed village.

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.

11



25. Respondent Veteran's determination that the boundary of 
the proposed village was not described with "common certainty" 
was, upon information and belief, entirely predicated upon the 
objection of the said Town Engineer, which is referred to supra 
in paragraph "18".

26. 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 
the objection of the said Director of Community Development 
which objection is referred to supra in paragraph "21".

27. Respondent Veteran's determination that incorporation of 
the new village was intended to prevent the construction of 
housing for homeless families was, upon information and belief, 
made without benefit of any factual support in the record and in 

calculated disregard of facts, personally communicated to him by 
leading proponents of incorporation, that no such exclusionary 
purpose was intended to be realized as a result of incorporation.

28. Respondent Veteran's determination that a substantial 
number of signatures on the petition were obtained under false 
pretenses was, upon information and belief, entirely fabricated 

since no objections, testimony, proof, affidavits, or evidence of 
any kind was ever submitted at the hearing with respect to this 
issue.

12



29. Respondent Veteran's determination that a substantial 
number of signatures on the petition were irregular and/or did 
not match the signatures of the purported signatories on file 
with the Board of Elections was, upon information and belief, 
entirely predicated upon the objection referred to supra at 
paragraph "15".

30. Respondent Veteran's determination that the list of 
regular inhabitants contained in the petition was incomplete was, 
upon information and belief, entirely fabricated; in fact said 
list was complete and accurate.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM

31. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs 
"12 " and ”24(f) " .

32. Since no objection was filed pursuant to Village Law 
§2-206(1) pertaining to the supposed omission of names from the 
list of regular inhabitants, Respondent Veteran's decision that 
numerous residents' names had been omitted from that list was 
illegal.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM

33. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs "12 
and "24(f)".

13



34. The burden of proof with respect to any objection to the 
legal sufficiency of an incorporation petition is, by reason of 

Village Law §2-206(3), imposed upon the objector(s).

35. Since no evidence was adduced with respect to the 
supposed omission of names from the list of regular inhabitants, 
Respondent Veteran's decision that numerous residents' names had 
been omitted from that list was based upon insufficient evidence

AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM

36. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs 
"24(f)” and "30 " .

37. Since Respondent Veteran's decision that numerous 
residents' names had been omitted from the list of regular 

inhabitants was fabricated, and since that list was in fact 
complete and accurate, testimony and/or evidence should be taken 
by the Court pursuant to Village Law §2-210(1) in order to issue 
a declaration determining said list to be legally sufficient.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM

38. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs "13" 
and "24(d)".

14



39. Since no objection was filed pursuant to Village Law 
§2-206(1) pertaining to the supposed securing of signatures on 
the incorporation petition under false pretenses, Respondent 
Veteran's decision that a substantial number of signatures were 
obtained under false pretenses was illegal.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CLAIM

40. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs
"13", "24(d)", and "34".

41. Since no evidence was adduced with respect to the 
supposed securing of signatures on the incorporation petition 
under false pretenses, Respondent Veteran's decision that a 
substantial number of signatures were obtained under false 
pretenses was based upon insufficient evidence.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CLAIM

42. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs 
"24(d)" and ”28".

43. Since Respondent Veteran's decision that signatures on 

the incorporation petition were obtained under false pretenses 
was fabricated, and since in fact no signatures were obtained 
under such pretenses, testimony and/or evidence should be taken

15



by the Court pursuant to Village Law §2-210(1) in order to 
declare that the signatures on the petition to incorporate were 
lawfully obtained.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CLAIM

44. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs "14" 
and "24(c)".

45. Since no objection was filed pursuant to Village Law 
§2-205(1) pertaining to the supposed objective of the proponents 
of incorporation to prevent the construction of housing for the 
homeless, Respondent Veteran's decision that the sole purpose of 
those proponents was to bar such construction was illegal.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CLAIM

45. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs 
"14", "24(c)", and 34.

46. Since no evidence was adduced with respect to the 
intentions of the proponents of incorporation, Respondent 
Veteran's decision that their sole purpose in incorporating was 

to bar such construction was based on insufficient evidence.

16



AS AND FOR A NINTH CLAIM

47. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs 
"14", "24(c)" and "27".

48. Since Respondent Veteran's decision regarding the sole 
purpose of incorporation was fabricated, and since Respondent 
Veteran knew on the basis of facts communicated to him by leading 
proponents of incorporation that the barring of construction of 
housing for the homeless was neither a motive nor objective in 
incorporating, testimony and/or evidence should be taken by the 
Court pursuant to Village Law 2-210(1) in order to declare that 
the purpose of the proponents of incorporation was lawful.

AS AND FOR A TENTH CLAIM

49. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs 
"15" and "16".

50. Since the number of signatures required for the 
incorporation petition was legally sufficient, even if all of the 
challenged signatures were stricken, Respondent Veteran's 
decision that the incorporation petition was defective on the 
basis of the challenged signatures was illegal.

17



51. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraph "15".

52. Since no evidence was adduced at the hearing with respect 
to the conclusory objection pertaining to supposed irregularities 
in one hundred and twenty-five signatures on the incorporation 
petition, Respondent Veteran's decision that the incorporation 
petition was defective due to such irregularities was based on 
insufficient evidence.

AS AND FOR A TWELFTH CLAIM

53. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs 
"15", "17" "24(e) " and "29" .

54. Since Respondent Veteran's decision that there were 
significant numbers of irregularities in the signatures on the 
incorporation petition was false, and since the certified records 
of the Board of Election reveal that there were virtually no such 
irregularities, testimony and/or evidence should be taken by the 
Court pursuant to Village Law §2-210(1) in order to declare that 
all but nine of the more than five hundred signatures on the 

incorporation petition were proper.

AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CLAIM

18



AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH CLAIM

55. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs 
"18", "19", "24(a)" and "25".

56. Upon information and belief, the New York State 
Legislature has, by reason of the statutory scheme embodied in 
Article 2 of the Village Law, strictly limited the authority of 
Towns and/or their officials with respect to the incorporation of 
villages.

57. Upon information and belief, by reason of the said 
Article 2, the authority of Towns and/or their officials with 
respect to the incorporation of villages is limited to the 

performance of ministerial functions solely by the supervisor(s) 
and clerk(s).

58. Under the premises the Town Engineer was not a competent 
objector for purposes of Village Law §2-206, his purported 
objection to the incorporation petition was ultra vires, and the 
expenditure of town monies and supplies in the preparation of 
that purported objection was unlawful.

59. Since no lawful objection was filed pursuant to Village 
Law §2-206(1) pertaining to the legal sufficiency of the 

description of the boundary of the proposed village, Respondent 

Veteran's decision that that description was lacking in common 
certainty was illegal.

19



AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH CLAIM

60. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs 

"18 ", "20 ", "24(a) " and "25".

61. Since the Town Engineer's purported analysis of the 
boundary description for the proposed village was legally and 
factually flawed, and since that boundary was in fact described 
with common certainty as required by Village Law §2-202(1)(c )(1), 
testimony and/or evidence should be taken by the Court pursuant 
to Village Law §2-210(1) in order to declare that the boundary of 
the proposed village was described in the incorporation petition 

with common certainty.

AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH CLAIM

62. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs "18" 

and "2 2 " .

63. Since the boundary description of the proposed village as 
contained in the incorporation petition was sufficiently certain 
so as to permit Town Officials to prepare a map depicting that 

boundary, that boundary necessarily was described in the 
incorporation petition with "common certainty."

20



AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH CLAIM

64. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs 
"21", "22", "56" and "57".

65. Under the premises the Director of Community Development 
was not a competent objector for purposes of Village Law §2-206, 
her purported objection to the boundary of the proposed village 
as supposedly having been gerrymandered to exclude minorities was 
ultra vires, and the expenditure of town monies and supplies in 
the preparation of that purported objection was illegal.

66. Since no lawful objection was filed pursuant to Village 
Law §2-206(1) pertaining to supposed gerrymandering of the 
boundary of the proposed village, Respondent Veteran's decision 
that that boundary was gerrymandered to exclude minorities was 
illegal.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH CLAIM

67. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs 
"21", "23", "24(b), and "26".

68. Since Respondent Veteran's decision that the boundary of 
the proposed village had been gerrymandered to exclude minorities 
was false, and since in fact that boundary had not been 

gerrymandered and had been drawn on the basis of proper and

21



lawful objectives, testimony and/or evidence should be taken by 
the Court pursuant to Village Law §2-210(1) in order to declare 
that the boundary of the proposed village was drawn for proper 
and lawful purposes.

AS AND FOR A EIGHTEENTH CLAIM

69. Repeat and reallege as if fully set forth paragraphs "9", 
and "31" through "68".

70. Upon information and belief the six grounds asserted by 
Respondent Veteran on the basis of which he rejected the 
incorporation petition were pretextual and intended to obfuscate 
his true motive and objective, to wit, retaliation for, and/or 
interference with, and/or the chilling of Petitioners' exercise 
of their rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the 
United States Constitution.

71. Under the premises Respondent Veteran's December 1, 1988, 
decision was illegal and violative of Petitioners' rights as 
guaranteed by the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

WHEREFORE judgment is respectfully demanded:

a. On the first, second and third claims reversing 
Respondent Veteran's decision to the extent that he held that the 

incorporation petition was defective by reason of the omission of 
names and addresses from the list of regular inhabitants, and 

declaring that said list was legally sufficient,

22



b. On the fourth, fifth and sixth claims reversing 
Respondent Veteran's decision to the extent that he held that the 
incorporation petition was defective by reason of the securing of 
signatures under false pretenses, and declaring that the 
signatures to said petition were lawfully obtained,

c. On the seventh, eighth, and ninth claims reversing 
Respondent Veteran's decision to the extent that he held that the 
incorporation petition was improper because the proponents of 
incorporation had as their objective the barring of construction 
of housing for the homeless, and declaring that the purpose(s) of 
the proponents of the incorporation petition were lawful,

d. On the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth claims reversing 
Respondent Veteran's decision to the extent that he held that the 

incorporation petition was defective by reason of irregularities 
in signatures thereon, and declaring that all but nine of the 
signatures on said petition were proper,

e. On the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth claims 
reversing Respondent Veteran's decision to the extent that he 
held that the incorporation petition was defective because the 
boundary of the proposed village was not described with common 
certainty, and declaring that said boundary was described with 
common certainty,

23



f. On the sixteenth and seventeenth claims reversing 
Respondent Veteran's decision to the extent that he held that the 
incorporation petition was defective because the proposed 
village's boundary had been gerrymandered to exclude minorities, 
and declaring that the boundary of the proposed village was drawn 
for proper and lawful purposes.

g. On the eighteenth claim reversing the December 1, 
1988, decision of Respondent Veteran, declaring that the grounds 
asserted in said decision by Respondent Veteran for rejecting the 
incorporation petition were pretextual, and declaring that by 
rendering the said decision Respondent Veteran violated 
Petitioners' rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the 
United States Constitution,

h. On all causes of action ordering the conduct of an 
election, as provided in Village Law §2-212, to determine the 
question of incorporation as presented by the petition to 
incorporate the Village of Mayfair Knollwood.

i. Awarding costs, reasonable attorney's fees pursuant 
to 42 U.S.C. §1988, and such other and further relief as to the 
Court seems just and proper.

Dated: December 18, 1989
ULD, ESQS

onathan Lovett 
Attorneys for Petitioners 
1So/e . Post Road 
White Plains, N.Y. 10601 
914-428-8401



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

STATE OF NEW YORK
) ss:

COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER)

MYLES GREENBERG, being duly sworn deposes and says:
I am one of the Petitioners herein, I have read the annexed 

Amended 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.

Sworn to before me this 
/ S  th day of December, 1989.



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:
I am one of the Petitioners herein, I have read the annexed 

Amended 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.

FRANCES MULLIGAN

Sworn to before me this 
th day of December, 1989

EUGENE L. MORRISON 
Notaiy Public, Stata of New Yor* 

tNo. 60-80:6000 
Qualified tr. Westchester County 

Com iv.li'-U i Expires
n i o



C
he

ck
 

A
p

p
lir

o
b

le
Index No.

u .  . j  .  . . .  . . .

Liv. UjJl Year 19

pro-:ona.its of a r^uitio - to '■  Villas o- ;.3a./fair ----- '
r.v*;c

o-l toon-ore,
Fo-  ?. Ja.lT.-t2-i t v -  - i O  .

*“ U

•'■“ v F .  1 * J U 'c rv o s c r  o '  u u .  v y :..  ...
.<or>; e a r , . ,  G ^ . - * L o o t : ! ; ,  io u n  C io r.\ o f  ttio  o f
' fa/Ql, ... . >. ■■ I p r  .. i_t .].. . ,UL ,7Vil L̂ . IV :

Attorneys for
LOVETT & GOULD

P o r ic io n o r  -
180 EAST POST ROAD 

WHITE PLAINS. NEW YORK 10601 
(914) 428-8401

To:

Attorney (s) for

Service of a copy of the within 

Dated:

Attorney (s) for

is hereby admitted.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Q  that the within is a (certified) true copy of a 
i  notice  of  e n tw d  in  the o / / i f e  ofthe d e rk  ofthg  M, m  M a m e rf C o M r ,

75

□  that an 0r(ier of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the Hon.
one of the judges of the within named Court,NOTICE OF 

SETTLEMENT at
on

Dated:

19 at M.

Attorneys for
LOVETT & GOULD

To:

180 EAST POST ROAD 
WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601

4 1 i