Greenberg v. Veteran Amended Verified Petition
Public Court Documents
December 14, 1989

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Greenberg v. Veteran Amended Verified Petition, 1989. e8838a6a-b49a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ab165bad-0401-40e9-bd8d-ee9bb4734d59/greenberg-v-veteran-amended-verified-petition. Accessed April 28, 2025.
Copied!
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