Greenberg v. Veteran Respondents' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

    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  6 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 EW IN D  
L L O Y D  K. G A R R IS O N  
J O 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  8 G A R R I S O N

NEW YORK.  NEW Y O R K  1 0  0 1  9  - 6 0 6 4

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 U R

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  TW IN  TO W ER  
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 AR 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 A X  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 IEN  
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  
JA 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 TE 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 . 3R D  
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 I5  
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

•NOT AD M ITTED  TO NEW YORK BAR. 
••C O N S E IL  JU R ID IQ U E IN FRANCE ONLY.

(212) 373-3234 February 12, 1990

Paul Agresta, Esq.
Town HallTown of Greensburgh 
Tarrytown & Norwood Roads 
Elmsford, New York 10523

Greenberg v. Veteran
Dear Paul:

I have enclosed revisions of the brief and affidavit. 
Please call me Tuesday, and we will finalize everything.

Sincerely,

i Jay L. Himes

Enclosurescc: All counsel for respondents
FEDERAL EXPRESS



a:2.txt[12]
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-

ANTHONY F. VETERAN, et al..
Respondents.

x

RESPONDENTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR,ALTERNATIVELY. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Preliminary Statement

The test for a boundary description, contained in 
Village Law § 2-202(1)(c)(1), is "common certainty" in the 
incorporation petition —  not 20/20 hindsight in the midst of 
litigation. A petition that fails to pass this test is 
insufficient and cannot form the basis for creating a new 
municipal entity. The Second Department's Viola Hills 
affirmance further establishes the need for strict adherence 
to the statute. Matter of Viola Hills v. Conklin, Index No. 
6985/85 (Rock. Co. Sup. Ct. Dec. 31, 1985), aff'd, 129 A.D.2d 
579, 514 N.Y.S.2d 79 (2d Dept.), leave to appeal denied, 70 
N.Y.2d 602, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1024, 512 N.E.2d 550 (1987).

Try as they may, petitioners cannot sweep under the 
rug all the deficiencies in the Mayfair Knollwood description. 
Although there may be grounds for dispute over the sufficiency



2

of some parts of the description, petitioners themselves 
acknowledge enough problems to confirm the Town Supervisor's 
conclusion that the description lacks common certainty. 
Accordingly, respondents' motion should be granted.

Argument
I

PETITIONERS EFFECTIVELY 
ADMIT THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFICIENCIES IN THE DESCRIPTION

Interestingly, whoever prepared the Mayfair Knollwood 
description has not come forward to defend it. Instead, 
petitioners have submitted an affidavit by a title examiner 
—  Mr. DeBerardinis —  reviewing the description (as well as 
a "me too" affidavit by a land surveyor). But Mr. DeBerardinis' 
strained effort only highlights the lack of common certainty 
in the description. Either explicitly or implicitly, he 
acknowledges multiple problems.

First, let us look at the beginning point for the 
entire description: "the intersection of the easterly side
of Knollwood Road and the southerly border of the town of 
Mount Pleasant located at or about the center of said Grasslands 
Road." (BD, p. 1 Mr. DeBerardinis effectively concedes

1/ References to "BD" followed by a page ("p") and (often)
(Continued)



3

that this point is uncertain. He says that, "[i]n point of
fact the beginning point of the subject description was taken
directly from the New York State Department of Transportation
taking maps, on file in the office of the Westchester County
Clerk . . . (DeBerardinis Aff. 1 9[b]; emphasis added)

But the description itself does not say that.
Mr. DeBerardinis therefore had to go to another source to
reach his conclusion —  which is part of the reason that the
description lacks common certainty.

Indeed, Mr. Nardecchia himself pointed out the
absence of a filed map reference as a starting point.
(Nardecchia St., p. 3) Mr. DeBerardinis took issue with his
comment, but then did exactly what Mr. Nardecchia said needed 

2 /to be done.-7

(Continued)a line ("l.”) number are to the Mayfair Knollwood boundary description, copies of which are included in 
both sides' papers. References to "DeBerardinis Aff." 
are to the opposing affidavit of Donald J. DeBerardinis, 
February 5, 1990. References to "Nardecchia St." are to 
the statement of Larry J. Nardecchia, Jr., a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit 3 to respondents' moving 
papers.

2/ There is, we recognize, a technically incorrect quality to Mr. Nardecchia's statement that a metes and bounds 
description is supposed to begin from a point on a filed 
map. A known point on a filed deed also will do. The 
key is to identify a publicly ascertainable point.
Here, however, Mr. DeBerardinis' effort to establish the 
missing known point led him to a filed map —  just as 
Mr. Nardecchia suggested.



4

The identified beginning point thus lacks a clear
reference. The "at or about" modifier compounds the ambiguity.
Mr. DeBerardinis does not dispute the uncertainty in the "at
or about" language. He just ignores it. That is another
example of why the description lacks common certainty.

Second, Mr. DeBerardinis tries to impart meaning to
the first shift away from a metes and bounds description:

Running thence southerly a distance of approximately 
25 feet to the northeasterly corner of lands now or 
formerly of Mount Vernon Trap Rock Corporation being at the intersection of the westerly boundary 
of Manhattan Park as shown on R.O. Map #1015 on a nnurse South 3° 56' 20" West a distance of 248.20 
feet (BD, p. 11, 1. 26; emphasis added)

In his words, "[t]he subject line moves 'southerly a distance 
of approximately 25 feet' to a finite point" on a filed map. 
(DeBerardinis Aff. 1 9[c]) Mr. DeBerardinis, however, 
ignores the underscored language, which renders incomprehen­
sible the prior references to direction, distance, and a 
filed map. He suggests no possible interpretation for this 
language. There is no common certainty.

Third, Mr. DeBerardinis concedes the omission of a 
directional bearing in the following part of the description 
(DeBerardinis Aff. H 9[g]):

Running thence easterly and at right angles to the 
westerly side of Montgomery Avenue a distance 285 
feet to a point in the westerly side of Montgomery 
Avenue (BD, p. 13, 1. 10)



5

He would prefer to gloss over the defect, calling it "irrelevant" 
in view of Mr. Nardecchia's comment that, for a single defi­
ciency, "a forced closure could compute the bearing and 
distance giving a unique description." (Nardecchia St., 
p. 4)

Mr. Nardecchia's remark, however, applies only
where the description is stated entirely in metes and bounds,
and only where there are no other defects. Neither condition
exists here. Mr. DeBerardinis makes no other proposal to
correct the error —  nor could he.

Fourth, Mr. DeBerardinis implicitly recognizes a
defect in following part of the description:

Running thence along a curve to the right with a 
radius of 731.0 feet, a central angle of 4°21' 09" 
a distance of 55.53 feet to a point (BD, p. 15,
1. 12)

Mr. DeBerardinis suggests that the angle of the curve is 
"inaccurately recited," but that the radius, direction and 
length of the curve could be used to continue the boundary 
"despite the alleged error." (DeBerardinis Aff. f 9[1])
However, that solution assumes that the error is in the 
angle, and that all the other relevant dimensions are correct. 
The error may be in the stated radius or distance, or more 
than one dimension may contain an error. There is no way 
from the description to tell.



6

As is evident, this part of description tries to 
depict a curve, the end point of which is not identified by- 
reference to anything else (such as, for example, a street).
In these circumstances, to determine the intended curve, all 
the mathematical components must be correct. If they are 
not, there is no way to ascertain the intended curve from the 
description itself. Moreover, while any two components may 
be applied mathematically to derive the third, the curve that 
results will differ, depending on which dimension is assumed 
to be inaccurate. Thus, all we do know is that there is at 
least one error; while several curves could be drawn, the 
intended curve is uncertain.

Fifth, the description includes movement along the 
division line between the Town of Greenburgh and the Town of 
Mount Pleasant on a line "generally parallel" with identified 
courses and distances. (BD, p. 17, 11. 19 & 29) According 
to Mr. DeBerardinis, the concept "generally parallel" is 
"obviously intended to show the general direction of the 
description along the division line . . . ." (DeBerardinis 
Aff. K 9[0]) This, however, is Mr. DeBerardinis' gloss on 
the description; he does not claim that "generally parallel" 
is a recognized surveying concept. It is not.

Finally, at one point, the description refers to 
the following 14 courses and distances, and then lists only 
13 "South" courses and distances. (BD, p. 18) Mr.DeBerardinis



7

tells the Court that the 14th "is plainly" the next paragraph 
in the description. (DeBerardinis Aff. 1 9[q], referring to 
BD, p. 18, 1. 5) Mr. DeBerardinis' explanation is implausible 
because the descriptive format of the next paragraph is 
entirely different from the 13 courses and distances that 
preceded it. Whereas the first 13 are relative simple 
southeasterly referents, the "conscripted" 14th is a compli­
cated curve. Furthermore, the alleged 14th course and 
distance, unlike its "predecessors," begins with the expres­
sion "Running thence" —  the convention used throughout the 
description to express new directional points, not the 
continuation of a series of courses and distances.

Hence, Mr. DeBerardinis' forced rationalization is 
doubtful. In any event, the salient point is that, again, 
there is no way to tell from the description itself whether 
or not Mr. DeBerardinis is correct.

These defects establish that the Mayfair Knollwood 
boundary lacks common certainty. The Town Supervisor correctly 
rejected the incorporation petition. The rest of petitioners' 
opposition to dismissal is a sideshow.

II
PETITIONERS CANNOT ESCAPE DISMISSAL 

The notion that the petitioners supposedly were 
improperly denied administrative review of the boundary issue



8

is academic. (Pet. Mem. 10-11, SO-Sl)1^ With their submis­
sion on this motion of further evidence —  at least the 
substance they should have alleged in the review petition 
itself —  they will receive adequate judicial review to 
remedy any alleged error. Although we do not concede peti­
tioners' suggestion that, by permitting receipt of new 
evidence, Village Law § 2-210(1) eviscerates the appellate 
review quality of this proceeding (see Pet. Mem. 30-31), we 
do not object to the introduction of new matter relevant to 
the boundary description issue. As we saw above, even after 
taking their best shot, the Town Supervisor's conclusion is 
still standing.

The assertion that Town funds were improperly used 
on the Nardecchia review affords no justification for toler­
ating an incorporation petition with a defective boundary 
description. (Pet. Mem. 32-35) Formation of a municipal 
entity with an uncertain boundary is simply impermissible.
If petitioners wish to press their claim, there are proper 

4/ways to do so.

3/ References to "Pet. Mem." are to Petitioners' Memorandum 
in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary 
Judgment.

4/ In fact, no Town funds were used. Mr. Nardecchia did
the review on his own time. The issue, however, has no 
bearing on this proceeding.



9

Next, there is no merit to the argument that 
Educ. L. § 7208(e) renders Mr. Nardecchia "incompetent as a 
matter of law" to express his opinion regarding the boundary 
description. (Pet. Mem. 11) Mr. Nardecchia plainly did not 
"determine" a boundary within the meaning of § 7208(e). He 
only commented on someone else's attempt to describe one.
The fact that he is a licensed professional engineer, not a 
land surveyor, goes only to the weight given to his opinion.
See Cutro v. Duffy. 88 A.D.2d 1007 (3d Dept. 1982) (testimony 
by intern land surveyor was admissible). Indeed, Mr. DeBerardinis, 
petitioners' primary affiant, does not claim to be either a 
licensed land surveyor or a professional engineer; he works 
for a title company.

Finally, petitioners' plea for discovery rings 
hollow. (Affidavit of Jonathan Lovett, sworn to February 6,
1990, % 7) As noted in our moving papers, a proper incorpo­
ration petition boundary description is one thing. A map 
illustrating exclusionary effect is another. The Town's 
ability to extrapolate the boundary —  despite its deficien­
cies —  furnishes no basis for ignoring the requirements of 
the Village Law. A round of discovery will not make the 
defects in the description —  some of which even 
Mr. DeBerardinis recognizes —  go away.



10

Conclusion
The Mayfair Knollwood boundary description is 

riddled with defects. Maybe the title company that 
Mr. DeBerardinis works for would consider insuring it none­
theless. Title companies, after all, are in the business of 
taking calculated risks. But municipal entities are not 
formed that way.

The appropriate judicial response is to affirm the 
Town Supervisor's decision, thus enabling the village propo­
nents to decide whether to start again. Respondents' motion 
should be granted.

Dated: Elmsford, New YorkFebruary __, 1990

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL AGRESTA, ESQ.
Town Attorney 
Town of Greenburgh 
P.O. Box 205Elmsford, New York 10523 
(914) 993-1546
Attorney for RespondentsAnthony F. Veteran and Susan Tolchin



11

CUDDY & FEDER 90 Maple Avenue White Plains, New York 10601 
(914) 761-1300

By:___________________________Ruth E. Roth
Attorney for RespondentsKaren Developments, Inc. and Robert
Martin Company

RUTH E. ROTH, ESQ.
90 Maple Avenue 
White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 761-1300
Respondent Pro Se

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON 
1285 Avenue of the Americas 
New York, New York 10019-6064 
(212) 373-3000

By Jay L. Himes
Attorneys 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



12

JOYCE KNOX, 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

Of Counsel:
Robert M. Hayes, Esq.
O'Melveny & Myers 
Citicorp Center153 East 53rd Street, Room 5314 
New York, New York 10022
Julius L. Chambers, Esq.
John Charles Boger, Esq. 
Sherrilyn Ifill, Esq.
99 Hudson Street New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900
Andrew M. Cuomo, Esq.12 East 33rd Street, 6th Floor 
New York, New York 10016 
(212) 779-3350



a: 4.txt[7]
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-

ANTHONY F. VETERAN, et al.,
Respondents.

REPLY AFFIDAVIT

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

_____________, being sworn, states:
1. I am [POSITION. DESCRIBE LAND SURVEY BACKGROUND]. 

I submit this reply affidavit in support of respondents' 
motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment.

2. I understand that the nature of this motion 
does not lend itself to a point-by-point response to peti­
tioners' opposing papers. Accordingly, I wish simply to set 
out background facts and terminology that I believe will be 
of assistance to the Court in considering this motion.

3. First, the matter of the beginning point of a 
land description. Mr. Nardecchia stated that "[a]11 metes 
and bounds descriptions are supposed to begin at a known 
point on a filed map." (Nardecchia Statement, p. 3) In 
response, Mr. DeBerardinis asserts that "[m]etes and bounds 
descriptions are supposed to begin from a known point, with

r



that one starts at the beginning of the description and draws 
the boundary on a map by plotting each point mathematically 
until the point of ambiguity. At that juncture, you can 
proceed no further. One can, however, continue the drawing 
by going to its end point —  which, of course, corresponds to 
the starting point —  and by working backwards. At the 
conclusion of that second process, the entire boundary will 
be drawn, except for two disconnected points. Once those 
points are connected by a straight line, a bearing and 
distance may be computed mathematically. The description may 
thus be completed. Today, computers commonly perform this 
task.

6. Forced closure is available only where the 
description has a single ambiguity. It has no application 
where there are two or more problems. Moreover, forced 
closure can be applied only to a description stated entirely 
in metes and bounds. If the description alternates between 
metes and bounds and other systems, forced closure is mathe­
matically impossible. A field survey would have to be done 
to try to establish the intended description. For this 
reason, a mixed descriptive system with one ambiguity lacks 
common certainty.

7. The Mayfair Knollwood incorporation descrip­
tion does, indeed, alternate between metes and bounds and 
filed map references. As such, the description is not

3



susceptible to forced closure. Moreover, there are multiple 
description defects.

8. Third, one part of the Mayfair Knollwood 
description describes "a curve to the right with a radius of 
731.0 feet, a central angle of 4° 21* 09" a distance of 55.53 
feet to a point." (Boundary Description, p. 15, 1. 12) The 
end point of this curve is not defined by any physical 
referent (such as a street, border or intersection). Hence, 
to plot the intended curve, all three mathematical components 
must reconcile to the prior point. Both sides agree, however, 
that there is an error here because the numbers do not 
reconcile. In their opposing papers, petitioners assume that 
the central angle measurement is incorrect, and they would 
use the other two components to "back into" the intended 
central angle. (DeBerardinis Aff. f 9[1]) Then, a curve 
could be plotted.

9. That is a solution, but not the only one. The 
error also might be in either the radius or distance lengths. 
Although any two of the three components may be used to 
derive the third, the curve that results will differ, depend­
ing on which component is assumed to be incorrect. The 
intended boundary would change accordingly. There is no way 
to tell from the description alone just where the error lies 
—  or, indeed, whether there is one or more than one error.

4



All that can be established is that the numbers do not mesh.
The intended curve is unknown.

10. At other points in the description, movement 
along the division line between the Town of Mount Pleasant 
and the Town of Greenburgh, "generally parallel" to identified 
courses and distances, is set forth. (Boundary Description, 
p. 17, 11. 19, 29) "Generally parallel" is not a recognized 
surveying term. Even Mr. DeBerardinis does not claim famil­
iarity with the term, although he does not try to interpret 
its intended meaning here. (DeBerardinis Aff. 9[o] & [p])

11. Finally, the last page of the boundary descrip­
tion cannot fairly be called a "description" at all under 
recognized surveying practice. (Boundary Description, p. 19) 
It is simply a series of instructions to the reader to search 
out points on several maps in order to complete the boundary. 
It is not enough to say, as Mr. DeBerardinis does, that the 
maps themselves are accurate. (DeBerardinis Aff. 1 9[r]) A 
scavenger hunt just is not a land description. This approach, 
coming at the very end of the description, virtually compels

5



the interference that the village proponents, for whatever 
reason, gave up in their effort to craft a proper description.

Sworn to before me this 
____ day of February 1990

Notary Public

6