Veteran v. New York Affidavits in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgement

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------ -
In the Matter of the Application of 
MYLES GREENBERG and FRANCES M.
MULLIGAN,

89 Civ. 0591 (GLG)
Petitioners,

-against- AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND/

ANTHONY F. VETERAN, et. al., OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Respondents.
-------------------------------------- x
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss . :
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER )

JONATHAN LOVETT, being duly sworn deposes and says:

1. I am counsel to Petitioners and submit this affidavit on 
the basis of personal knowledge and in opposition to Respondents' 

motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment.

2. On November 1, 1988, I attended the public hearing 
pertaining to the incorporation petition for the proposed village 
of Mayfair Knollwood.

3. At said hearing no objection to the incorporation 

petition was made with respect to the legal sufficiency of the 
boundary description contained therein.

4. At the conclusion of proceedings on November 1, 1988, and 

out of concern that objections would be filed thereafter and with 

respect to which the proponents of incorporation would for lack

1



of knowledge be denied any timely opportunity to comment, I 
requested of Town Attorney Paul Agresta that he provide me with 

copies of all objections as soon as they became available. Mr. 
Agresta agreed to do so and thereafter provided me with nothing 

prior to the Supervisor's filing of his adverse determination on 
December 6, 1988.

5. For lack of knowledge of the existence of and/or content 
of the Town Engineer's purported analysis of the boundary 

description my clients were denied any opportunity to comment 
with respect to that analysis until after the Supervisor had 

rendered his said determination.

6. For the reasons set forth in Petitioners' accompanying 
memorandum of law and the annexed affidavits, it is submitted 

that Respondents' motion should be denied.

7. Since no discovery has yet occurred in this case your 

affiant cannot presently refute the hearsay allegations of the 

Town Attorney pertaining to the Town's preparation of a boundary 

map depicting the proposed village of Mayfair Knollwood (Agresta 

Affidavit, para. 12). Accordingly, should the Court be inclined 

to credit Mr. Agresta's statements despite the absence of an 

affidavit from the person with personal knowledge regarding the 

preparation of that map (presumably Mr. Nardecchia), Petitioners 

request in accordance with FRCP 56(f) that they be permitted to 

engage in discovery in order to ascertain the truth regarding the

2



Town's drafting of the subject map prior to any adjudication 

being made with respect to their Fifteenth Claim (Amended 

Verified Petition, paras. 62-3).

WHEREFORE it is respectfully requested that Respondents' 
motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment be in all respects 
denied.

Sworn to before me this 
day of February 1990 .

Notary

Qu*Wi*d in Wootchootor County q r , 
Conmisoiun Expires October 17, IftJL

3



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------- x
In the Matter of the Application of 
MYLES GREENBERG and FRANCES M.
MULLIGAN,

89 Civ. 0591 (GLG)
Petitioners,

-against- AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND/

ANTHONY F. VETERAN, et. al., OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Respondents.
-------------------------------------- x
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss . :
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER)

DONALD J. DeBERARDINIS, being duly sworn deposes and says:

1. I have been employed in New York State since July 5, 1972 
as a Title Examiner, Title Closer and Title Insurance Agent which 

employment requires my review of property descriptions, survey 

maps, subdivision maps, tax maps, easement agreements, railroad 

maps, highway taking maps and other pertinent descriptions and/or 

depictions of real property throughout New York State for the 
purpose of determining the exact location of easements, 

encumbrances and the like for the commercial purpose of 

determining insurability.

2. Based upon my review and the consequent opinions of title 

rendered by me, various title insurance companies have, over the 

years, issued insurance in excess of fifty million 
($50,000,000) dol’lars .

1



3. On the basis of my experience I am completely familiar 
with the form and substance of property descriptions, as the same 
have been customarily prepared and used for descriptive purposes 
over the past two hundred and thirty years, including the customs 
and practices pertaining to such descriptions in the City of New 

York, Westchester County, Suffolk County, and inter alia Ulster 
County.

4. On the basis of my experience and reputation in this 

field I have over the past ten years devoted a substantial amount 

of my professional time to providing expert consultations with 

land surveyors, real estate attorneys, lenders and others 
interested in real property matters.

5. I have thoroughly reviewed the property description, 
annexed hereto as Exhibit 1, which description I understand was 
submitted to the Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, New York 
in conjunction with a petition to incorporate the village of 

Mayfair Knollwood.

6. I have thoroughly reviewed the statement of Larry J. 
Nardecchia, Jr., annexed hereto as Exhibit 2, which I understand 

was made by him in opposition to the aforesaid petition to

incorporate the Village of Mayfair Knollwood.
*

7. In my professional and expert opinion, the details of 

which are set forth infra, the said Nardecchia statement is, with

2



but one minor and irrelevant exception (also discussed below), 
materially false with respect to Nardecchia's "analysis" of 
supposed deficiencies contained in the aforesaid property 
description.

8. Prior to considering Nardecchia's false analysis of that 
description, certain omissions and/or false representations made 

by Nardecchia in the introductory portion of his statement ought 
to be called to the Court's attention:

a. Grossly misleading is the suggestion made by 

Nardecchia at page "2" of his statement (p. 125 of the record 
which I understand was submitted to the Court by Respondents) 

that property descriptions used to be recorded years ago by 

reference to natural or artificial features of the terrain but 

that in modern times those descriptions are recorded by reference 

to metes and bounds. Measurements for purposes of property 

description have always been, and still are, most effective when 
used in conjunction with definite, physical monuments, whether as 
a starting point from which to begin computation or for purposes 
as a reference point in relation to mathematical computations. In 

the event of a dispute between facts disclosed by mathematical 

computation and those disclosed by physical monumentation, the 

dispute is almost always resolved in favor of physical 

monuments. >

3



b. Nardecchia's representation that "metes and bounds 
descriptions are supposed to begin at a known point on the filed 
map" (Statement p. 3, second full para; record p. 126) was either 
intended as a fabrication or constitutes a betrayal of his 

ignorance regarding methods of describing real property. Many, 
many metes and bounds descriptions are employed simply because 

the premises intended to be described do not appear on any filed 
map. Metes and bounds descriptions are supposed to begin at a 

known point, with our without the benefit of a filed map, since 
the intent in rendering a property description is to locate a 
finite point in space and then move in as certain a direction for 

as certain a distance in relation to said point as instruments 
and physical monuments allow.

c. Omitted from Nardecchia's general discussion of the 

existing methods of describing real property are (i) the 

government or rectangular survey, (ii) the section method, and 
(iii) the plat method. The plat method, which is very often 

employed in New York State and Westchester County, describes real 

property by reference to its depiction on a filed map. This 

method of description is preferred since inter alia filed maps 

are almost always based upon field survey work including the 

location of both physical and legal boundaries and reference 

points, as well as mathematical reconciliation of the same. The 

repetition of a description by reference to a plat or filed map, 
due to the generally compact form of that description (as opposed 

to the generally lengthy form of a metes and bounds description)

4



reduces the possibility of error in transcription. Due to the 

extensive use of physical monumentation on most filed maps or 
plats, the intent of the parties can more easily be derived by a 
simple review of the referenced map or plat against the totality 
of the physical monumentation in the field.

d. Contrary to Nardecchia's repeated suggestions that 
the Mayfair Knollwood description is indefinite because a 

boundary line is described as running parallel to either a 

physical monument or another fixed line, such descriptions are 

commonplace and do not in any respect detract from the common 
certainty of a description. In fact in New York County, which 
property values presumably are greater than any other locale in 
the northeastern United States, metes and bounds descriptions of 
real property are rarely used. The customary method of describing 

real property in mid-town Manhattan, indeed the entire City of 

New York, is to monument the beginning point of the property 

described by reference to the nearest intersection of two 

streets, then to run in a "general" direction (either northerly, 

southerly, easterly or westerly) parallel to one of the streets 
for a fixed distance, and to continue in like fashion until the 

subject property description "closes", forming a unique, 

definitely determined polygon.

9. For the reasons set forth below it is my professional 

and expert opinion that each of Mr. Nardecchia's bases for 

concluding that the Mayfair Knollwood description is flawed, is 

utterly frivolous:

5



a. Nardecchia's claim (statement, p. 3; record, pp.
126) that the subject description is somehow flawed because the 
beginning point is not located on a filed map is spurious. The 
sufficiency and common certainty of a boundary description is, as 

previously detailed, irrelevant to the existence or non-existence 
of a filed map. So long as the boundary description begins at an 

ascertainable finite point, the omission of reference to filed 

maps is irrelevant.

b. Nardecchia's claim (statement, pp. 3-4; record, pp. 
126-7) that the boundary description is flawed because at its 
commencement it references the center line of Grasslands Road and 

that that center line has been altered by the New York State 

Department of Transportation is frivolous. In 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, Division 

of Land Records, which maps clearly delineate the subject point 
as a matter of public record. As an additional and indisputable 

fact the finite point of beginning of the subject description is 

not referenced by the center of Grasslands Road. Rather that 

finite point is referenced in the description as being at the 

"intersection of the easterly side of Knollwood Road and the 

southerly border of the town of Mount Pleasant" which point is 

merely described as being "at or about" [emphasis added] the 

center of said Grasslands Road". Since the described intersection

6



does not depend upon the precise location of Grasslands Road, Mr. 
Nardecchia's criticism is entirely without merit and common 
certainty exists.

c. Frivolous is Nardecchia's claim (statement, p. 4; 
record p. 127) that the boundary description at page 11, line 26 
is defective because it deviates from a metes and bounds 
description, utilizes terms like "thence southerly" without a 
bearing, and approximates distance ("approximately 25 feet"). In 

fact at p. 11, line 26 the description runs in a southerly 

direction from one finite point to a finite point shown on a 

filed map. Nardecchia's additional representation that there "is 

no way to determine in what direction the boundary line is 
intended to proceed, or for what distance" is incredible on its 

face. The subject line moves "southerly a distance of 
approximately 25 feet” to a finite point. Having traveled from 

one finite point in a southerly direction to another finite 

point, the absolute certainty of that line is beyond dispute.

d. Nardecchia's claim (statement, p. 4; record p. 127) 

that at page 12, line 24 of the boundary description 
discontinuity is manifested by the absence of a reference to 

distance or bearing, is frivolous. At page 12, line 24 the 

description moves from a fixed and finite point, westerly across 

a known monument '(Knollwood Road) to a definite point (i.e., 

where the Village of Elmsford border intersects the westerly line 

of Knollwood Road. Only one line in the universe satisfies this 

condition and common certainty exists.

7



e. Without substance is Nardecchia's claim (statement, 
p. 5; record, p. 128) that at page 13, line 2 the description is 
defective since no bearing is given and the distance is only 
approxmimate. At page 13, line 2 the description runs from a 

definite point, in an easterly direction along a physical 
monument (the southerly side of Payne Street) to a definite 

point, "...the intersection formed by the southerly side of Payne 

Street and the westerly side of Montgomery Avenue". Only one line 

satisfies this condition and common certainty exists.

f. Meritless is Nardecchia's claim (statement, p. 5; 
record p. 128) that at page 13, line 6 the description is 
defective since no bearing is given and distance is only 

approximate. At page 13, line 6, the description runs from a 

definite point, in a northerly direction across Payne Street to a 

definite point, namely "...the intersection formed by the 

northerly side of Payne Street and the westerly side of 
Montgomery Avenue". Only one line in the universe satisfies this 

condition and common certainty exists.

g. Nardecchia's claim (statement, p. 5; record p. 128) 

that the description is lacking in common certainty because at 

page 13, line 10 no bearing is given is meritless. The omission 

of reference to a’bearing at page 13, line 10 is irrelevant since 

that is the only error in the entire description and as conceded 

by Mr. Nardecchia (statement, p. 4; record, p. 127) with the

8



presence of only one point of deficiency "a forced closure could 
compute the bearing and distance giving a unique description". 
Since the remainder of Nardecchia's claimed deficiencies are 
without merit, as discussed below, the unique description is 
ascertainable and common certainty exists.

h. Without merit is Nardecchia's claim (statement, p.
5, record, p. 128) that at page 13, line 13 the description is 
defective because no bearing is given since one cannot go off at 

a right angle from a preceding line the bearing of which was not 
given. At page 13, line 13, the description runs easterly at 

right angles to the westerly side of Montgomery Avenue. The 

westerly line of Montgomery Avenue is well established, of 

record, and obviously exists with common certainty. A line 

perpendicular to such a street line moving (as a course) "...to a 

point distant 100 feet from the westerly side of Lawrence Avenue 
(as a distance) moves from a finite point to a finite point. 
Property descriptions including courses which are recited either 

parallel or perpendicular to streets upon which they front are 

commonplace in New York State.

i. Nardecchia's claim (statement, p. 5; record p. 128) 

that at page 13, line 16 the description is defective for lack of 

a bearing and because of a reference to the boundary line running 

parallel to a street line is frivolous. At page 13, line 16 the 

description runs in a definite direction (northerly and parallel 

with the westerly side of Lawrence Avenue) for a definite 

distance (400 feet).

9



j. Nardecchia's claim (statement, p. 5; record, p. 128) 

that at page 13, line 20 the description is defective for lack of 
a bearing or distance, is meritless. At page 13, line 20 the 
description runs from a finite point westerly across the Sprain 
Brook Parkway to a finite point measured by metes and bounds from 
a fixed monument shown on a filed map.

k. Frivolous is Nardecchia's claim (statement, p. 5; 

record, p. 128) that at page 14, line 31 the description is 

defective for lack of a bearing and because only an approximate 

distance is given. At page 14, line 31 the description runs from 
a fixed, definite point northwesterly to a fixed and definite 
point, namely the intersection of the westerly side of Saw Mill 

River Road and the southerly side of Fairview Park Drive.

l. Irrelevant is Nardecchia's claim (statement, pp.
5-6; record, pp. 128-9) that at page 15, line 12 the description 

is defective because the angle of the curve is incorrect. Even if 

the angle is inaccurately recited, that does not cause the 
description to fail. Since the radius, direction and length of 
the curve are given, and since the curve runs from one finite 

point to another finite point, only one curve can satisfy the 

given conditions* despite the alleged error. Hence common 
certainty exists.'

10



m. Without merit is Nardecchia's claim (statement, p.
6; record, p. 129) that at page 16, line 20 the description is 
defective because the extension of a straight line is referenced 
without benefit of a bearing and with only an approximate 
distance. At page 16, line 20 the description runs from a finite 

point, along the boundary of the "N.Y .C .RR.P .D ." and lands of the 

County of Westchester to a finite point at the southeasterly 
corner of lands shown on Filed Map 5673.

n. Nardecchia's claim (statement, p. 6; record, p. 129) 
that at page 17, line 15 the description is defective because 
there is no bearing or distance recited is meritless. At page 17, 

line 15, this line is a prolongation of the previous line which 
has a bearing of North 35 degrees 13 minutes 14 seconds East. By 

definition the prolongation at page 17, line 15 has a like 

bearing of North 35 degrees 13 minutes 14 seconds East. That line 
runs to a finite point in Old Saw Mill Road, namely the division 
line between the Town of Greenburgh and the Town of Mt. Pleasant. 

Common certainty thus exists.

o. Without merit is Nardecchia's claim (statement, p.

6; record, p. 129) that at page 17, line 19 the description is 

defective because of the reference to "generally parallel". At 

page 17, line 19 the descriptive criteria is the division line 

between the Town 6f Greenburgh and the Town of Mt. Pleasant, with 

the references to said line being "generally parallel" obviously

11



intended to show the general direction of the description along 
that division line, namely southeasterly from the definite point 
fixed at page 17, lines 15-18 to the definite point in that 
division line where it is intersected by another line which is 
the prolongation of the division line between two parcels shown 

on Filed Map. #5673, i .e ., from a fixed point along a fixed town 
boundary line in an southeasterly direction to a fixed point.

p. Nardecchia's claim (statement, p. 6, line 129) that 
at page 17, line 29 the description is defective by reason of its 
resort to "generally parallel" language is meritless. At page 17, 

line 29 the description continues along the division line between 
the towns of Greenburgh and Mount Pleasant, again making 

reference to various courses and distances to illustrate the 
general direction along said line, from a fixed point to another 
point in that division line.

q. Frivolous is Nardecchia's claim (statement, pp. 6-7; 

record, pp. 129-30) that at page 18, line 5 the boundary 
description erroneously recites that there are "14 courses and 

distance" when according to Nardecchia there are only thirteen 

courses and distances recited. There are thirteen courses and 

distances which are described beginning with the word "South". 

After the recital of those thirteen, the fourteenth is plainly 

set forth in the Second from the final paragraph on page 18. 

Movement along a curve with an established radius and central

12



angle, as set forth in that penultimate paragraph, is a course 
and the distance is finite since the curve runs to a monument ("a 
point on the aforesaid Town division line, at the intersection of 
Old Saw Mill River Road and Grasslands Road (a/k/a Lower Cross 
Road").

r. Nardecchia's claim (statement, p. 7; record, p. 130) 
that the last two pages of the description comprise a litany of 

towns, owners, and filed maps which cannot equate into a 

mathematical translation necessary to constitute a metes and 
bounds description is frivolous. In fact the portion of the 
description contained in the last two pages is probably the most 
absolutely precise portion of the description since it 

continuously runs along the aforementioned Town division line and 

makes direct reference while doing so, for monumentation 

purposes, to taking maps of the City of New York and the State 

Department of Transportation. These Department of Transportation 
maps are of very recent vintage and reflect the state of the art 

in engineering and surveying techniques. These City of New York 
maps are the taking maps for the construction of the City's 

aqueduct system; those maps are well known for their precision 
and accuracy.

10. For the reasons set forth above it is my professional and 

expert opinion th'at the boundary description for the village of 

Mayfair Knollwood submitted in connection with the petition for 

incorporation was described therein with common certainty.

13



WHEREFORE it is respectfully requested that Respondent's
motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment be in all respect
denied.

Donald J. DeBerardinis
Sworn to before me this 
j2JiHay of February 1990.

Notary Public

cSSSSSSl

14



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------- x
In the Matter of the Application of 
MYLES GREENBERG and FRANCES M.
MULLIGAN,

89 Civ. 0591 (GLG)
Petitioners,

-against- AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND/

ANTHONY F. VETERAN, et. al., OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Respondents.
-------------------------------------- x
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss . :
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER )

J. Charles Boolukos, being duly sworn deposes and says:

1. I am a land surveyor duly licensed by the State of New 

York (license #49494). I received a degree in land surveying from 
SUNY at Alfred in 1975, served as an apprentice land surveyor 
from 1975 to 1983, and for the past approximately fifteen years 
have practiced in the land surveying profession.

2. I have carefully reviewed the accompanying affidavit of 

Donald J. DeBerardinis, the property description referenced in 

paragraph "5" of said affidavit, and the statement of Larry J. 

Nardecchia, Jr. referenced in paragraph "6" of said affidavit.

3. On the basis of the reviews referred to in the preceding 

paragraph it is'my professional and expert opinion that:

1



a. The statement of Mr. Nardecchia, to the extent that 
it purports to identify flaws and/or deficiencies in the 

aforesaid property description, is with but one irrelevant 
exception [identified in paragraph "8(g)" of the DeBerardinis 
affidavit] materially false.

b. The said property description in fact describes the 
boundaries of the proposed village of Mayfair Knollwood with 
common certainty.

c. The analysis of the said property description 

contained in the DeBerardinis affidavit is in all respects 
accurate and correct.

WHEREFORE it is respectfully requested that Respondents' 

motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment be in all respects 
denied.

Sworn to before me this 
day of February 1990.

.. . MAH* ELLEN BURKE

2



Exhibit 1



EXHIBIT A

1 Description of th§ territory proposed to be incorporated as the 
| yillage of Mayfair^Knollwood with a description sufficient to 

identify and describing the location and extent of such territory 
with common certainty and which description includes a metes and" I 
bounds description of same forming the entire boundaries of the territory proposed to be incorporated as the Village of Mayfair Knollwood. •



a*uthf intersection of the easterly side of Knollwood Rcac and the southerly border of the town of Mount Pleasant located at c- about the center of said Grasslands Road. . °*

Running thence South 67? 40' East a distance of 49.25 fee*- along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town o^ Greenburgh.
Running thence South 6 8° 27' 40" East a distance of 344.15 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of Greenburgh.
Running thence South 67° 23' 20" East a distance of 165.00 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of Greenburgh.
R^^^ing thence South 6 8° 55' 30" East a distance cf 2 7 7 . 4 9  
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town cf Greenburgh.
Running thence South 71° 53' 40" East a distance of 98.00 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of ;Greenburgh. •

►

Running thence South 74" 32' 00" East a distance of 373.82 j feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of Greenburgh.
Running thence South 61® 38' 20" East a distance of 78.57 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of Greenburgh.
Running thence South 56° 32' 30" East a distance of 232.2S s 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount I 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of Greenburgh. * j



Running thence South 60° 25' 10" East a distance of 484.02 
feet alrng the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly.border pf the Town of 
Greenburgh. _ -i'- • .. -y
Running thence South €1° 45' 20"'East a'distance of 313.97 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh.
Running thence South 57° 39’ 50" East a distance of 375.77 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh.
Running thence South 60° 14' 50" East a distance of 320.11 feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh.
Running thence South 63° 35' 50" East a distance of 139.45 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh.
Running thence South 63° 58' 50" East a distance of 286.63 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh.
Running thence South 64« 20* 00" East a distance of 79.65 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town o- Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border.of the Town o^ 
Greenburgh.
Running thence South 6 6° 38’ 20" East a distance feet along the said southerly border o- the Town 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the 
Greenburgh.
Running thence South 70° 34’ 40" East a distance feet along the said southerly border of the Town 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the 
Greenburgh.
Running thence South 71* 19' 50" East a distance feet alcnc the said southerly border o. the Town 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border o. the 
Greenburgh. •*

of 74.66 of Mount Town of

of 2 1 0 . 6 8  of Mount Town of

of 45.90 of Mount 
Town of

- 2-



Running thence South 73° 56' 40" East a distance of 196.32 
feet along the said southerly border of the Tcwr o^ Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh - • • : *"■
Running thence South 79° 43’ 50" East a distance of 66.08 feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town o* 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 78* 52* 10" East a distance of 56.67 feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
P^Lan?? being also the northerly border of the Town of
Greenburgh
Running thence South 74° 04’ 10" East a distance of 39.04 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town o- Mount luasan?? being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
T?«-ninc thence South 6 8° 27’ 00" East a distance of 38.86 
feet along the said southerly border of theJTown of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border c~ the Town o^ 
Greenburgh
„ . _ 37’ 40” East a distance of 261.65
feet^long the said southerly border of the^Town Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border c- tne Town of 
Greenburgh

____«n° 23’ 40" East a distance of 61.09
I ^ S l o n g  She said* southerly border of the Town of Mount 
H i asln?? being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh

.. 1 3 • 0 4" East a distance of 38.60Running thence fout border of the Town of Mount
M S ?

Lane
_4 7 ° 49' 47" East a distance of 40.99

Greenburgh

- 3-



Running thence South 48° 40’ 36" East a distance of 16.25 feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of

Running thence South 45° 31' 31" East a distance of 18.51 feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of Greenburgh
Running thence South 43° 30' 22" East a distance cf 17.36 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of Greenburgh
Running thence South 38° 31' 27" East a distance of 23.76 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 30° 13' 50" East a distance of 64.79 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 28° 00' 40" East a distance cf 24.65 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 25° 46' 40" East a distance cf 5.02 feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 28° 52' 50" East a distance of 10.6C feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town cf 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 19° 26' 40" East a distance of 24.93 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 15° 06' 50" East a distance of 24.35 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town cf Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh

- 4-



Running thence Soutn j.<j* :u a a*j.a.iwe cl j«.»-feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh . . .........
Running thence South 14° 19' 20" East a distance'of 69.00 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 14° 19' 20" East a distance of 59.90 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 12° 35' 58" East a distance of 79.66 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 13° 58' 00" East a distance of 150.00 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 27° 31' 40" East a distance of 119.09 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 47“ 32' 20" East a distance of 82.49 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 14" 42' 50" East a distance 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the 
Greenburgh

of 83.19 of Mount 
Town of

Running thence South 5° 17* 20" East a distance of 21.26 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town c~ Mou... 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh
Running thence South 2" 18' 28" East a distance of 121.68 
feet along the said southerly border o* the Town of Mou^w Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of 
Greenburgh ,

- 5-



Running thence South 5* 07' 1 5 - East a distance c* 73 as 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount
Gre^SJgh 9 alS° ^  norfherly border of the Town of

Running thence South 35° 29* 55’-East a distance of 23 
Pleas^t”9^ ®  Said *0“therly border of the Town of Mount 
GreenburghbCln5 ilS° th* northerly border of the Town of

Running thence South T  49' 10" East a distance of 106.94 feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount
Greenbubghbein9 alS° the nortberly border of the Town of

Running thence South 23° 31* 20" East a distance of 35 05 
£?et along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town a* Greenburgh
Running thence South 42° 08' 10" East a distance of 72.11 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
P-easant, being also the northerly border of the Town o* Greenburgh
Running thence South 416 48' 10" East a distance of 50.62 
-eet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of Greenburgh
Running thence South 17° 13' 00" West a distance of 121.29 
feet along the said southerly border of the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, being also the northerly border of the Town of Greenburgh to a point at or about the center line of Hillside Avenue (also known as Route 100)
Running thence South 28° 35' 40" West a distance of 131.18 
feet at or about the center line of Hillside Avenue (also known as Route 100)
Running thence South 23° 20' 40" West a distance of 3SS.1S 
feet at or about the center line of Hillside Avenue (also known as Route 100)
Running thence South 21# 37' 00" West a distance of 54.39 
feet at or about the center line of Hillside Avenue (also known as Route 100)

- 6-



Running thence South 2 7 ° 3n •
S l o -00 feet at Jr ,h6St a dist«ce of 

-llside Avenue (also known iZ ^ Y o o ?  Une o£
Running thence'South 3 5 « n*>t nnm .

" * * • * ■ ' &  j i h j s

kno^n3^ °* center’lin" WfSt a dis^nce of 1 1 3  0known as Route 100) r llne of Hillside Avenue (alio
Running thence South 4 3 « iq.
k S w a ^ s t o S r J o J f  CCnter lin e  o r H i U s i l e ^ A v e ^

Running thence South 4i« 5 7 .
^ • i . ' S o E r j o s r center « £«
Running thence South 5 1 ° 1 1 »
^eet at or about the cente^ i?° Wast a distance of 3 2 1 07 known as Route 1 0 0) ‘ llne of Hillside Avenui (also
Running thence South 5 0 ° »i ,en
feet at or about the centp- i■  ̂ West a distance of 203 je 
W n  as Route 1 0 “  ‘ llne of “iHeide AvJnSe' JaisJ
Running thence South 5 1 ° 3 o» cm.
feet at or about the cente- l i n  Wfst.a distance of 1 3 7  un­known as Route 100) “ 1  e of Hillside Avenue (also**
Running thence South 5 4 ° so.
feet at or about the center l i n  Wfst.a distance of 65 41  known as Route 100) e °J‘ Hillside Avenue (also

thence South 6 0° 1 ei ecu
feet at or about the center lin W®st.a distance of 173 2 = known as Route 100) * lne °* Hillside Avenue (also'
Running thence South 5 9 ° st • qnn
feet at or about the center line nfS« •?,distance of 60. 49  known as Route 1 0 0) 1  f Hillside Avenue (also
Running thence South 6 6° 56' cn" ufeet at or about the center i ,• ̂  West a distance of 585 1 - 
known as Route 100) llne of Hillside Avenue (also"



gunning thence South 62° 42' 50" w6c* ,.
feet at or about the center line o? 5-fid^ tance of ^28.15known as Route 100) Hillside Avenue (also
Running thence South 80° 42'. 20" w , *•
feet at or about the center‘line of »Ce of 2 7 0 - 06known as Route 1 0 0) ine °f Hlilsi<fe Avenue (also
Running thence South 52? 25' 10" West ,
feet at or about the center line of °f 3 3 7 *83known as Route 1 0 0) ine °f Hlllside Avenue (also
Running thence South 49° 23' 10" West a j,-,*
feet at or about the center line of HillftSi*?Ce °f 1 5 8 ’ 38 known as Route 100) Hillside Avenue .(also
Running thence South 43° 10' 00" West a
feet at or about the center line of Hillfil^ 6 °f 1 2 1 *53  known as Route 100) Hillside Avenue (also
Running thence South 36° 40’ 30" West a
feet at or about the center line S-fid^ftance of 102*92known as Route 100) llne of Hillside Avenue (also
Running thence South 25° 06' 30" West > j,-effeet at or about the certer line o * u •f,df?tance of 93.38known as Route 1 0 0 ) 6 C6nter line of Hillside Avenue (aiso
Running thence North 8 6° 3 3 ' 4 0" use<. _ a-
S 5n \ V J o 3 W  “ nter line «** (also
Running thence South 17° 5 1 ' nnn uae4.'. j •feet a; or about the center lin. "f'l ?, of 215.86known as Route 100) "" *il3-3-slî e Avenue (also
Running thence South 15' 3 4 ' 3 0"
feet at or about the center line of v •?id*ftance 223.77known as Route 100) Cent#r lin* °f Hillside Av.aue (also
Running thence South 16° 5 4 ' in" - j -
tl^ls°kc,utrtotT  “ n t e r  ° f  H i l l « ^ a A v l n u e f  u f c ”  j

feet^to athpeofntS°Uth **' 10' 20' Hest * of 170.«
Running thence South 89° feet to a point 00' 20" West a distance of 171"0C

- 8-



Running thence South 89* 3 5 ' feet to a point -
Running thence North 80? 3 7 * feet to a point .
Running thence South 87° 4 1 ' feet to a point
Running thence South 8 8° 26' feet to a point
Running thence South 81® 3 4 ' feet to a point

20" West a distance of 49.00 

40". West a distance of 28.10 

20" West a distance of 418.87 

10" West a distance of 269.58 

10" West a distance of 120.40

»
i
fi
I

Running thence^South 8 6® 1 1 ' 00" West a distance of 48.11

f S t ^ I  ahp2in*S°Uth 84# 57' 3°" WSSt 3 distance 58.42

fiet^o ahpSintS°Uth 84° °4' 5°" WeSt 3 distance of 33.13

Running thence North 8 6® 04* 20“ West a distance of 1 U  52feet to a point j
I

Running thence South 8® 18' 00" East a distance cf 254 62 *eet to a point
Running thence South 9® 04' 00" East a distance of 104 °7 feet to a point
Running thence South 17® 49' 00" East a distance of 110 feet to a point
Running thence South 18® 06’ 00" East a distance of 56 78 feet to a point
Running thence South 16® 48' 00" East a distance of 1 91 i feet to a point
Running thence North 89® 44' 00" East a distance of 19 32 feet to a point
Running thence North 8 8® 00' 00" East a distance of 192.= feet to a point

- 9-



Running thence North 89 ® 0 0'
feet to a point
Running thence North 8 8" 43'
feet to a point - .*
Running thence North 87° 28’
feet to a point
Running thence North 8 6* 06'
feet to a point
Running thence South 89 0 2 0 *
feet to a point
Running thence North 8 8° 30'
feet to a point at or about
Avenue (also known as Route

00" East a distance of 94.52

00" East a distance of 216.34

00" East a distance of 95.18

00" East a distance of 100.31

00" East a distance of 135.72

00" East a distance of 188.13 he center line of Hillside 
0 0 )

Running thence South 15° 11' 00" West a distance of 742.31 
feet at or about the center line of Hillside Avenue (also 
known as Route 100)
Running thence South 89° 32*
feet to a point
Running thence North 87° 2 1 '
feet to a point
Running thence South 8 8° 30'
feet to a point
Running thence South 87® 25’
feet to a point
Running thence South 8 8® 40'
feet to a point
Running thence North 85* 45’
feet to a point
Running thence South 87" 16’
feet to a point
Running thence North 8 8® 09 '
feet to a point
Running thence South 8 6® 0 1 '
feet to a point

00" West a distance of 118.73 

00" West a distance of 57.22 

00" West a distance of 200.02 

00" West a distance of 126.00 

00" West a distance of 157.02 

00" West a distance of 19.13 

00" West a distance of 46.01 

00" West a distance of 34.05 

00" West a distance of 109'.04

10-



Running thence South 87° 55' 00" West a distance of 22.03 feet to a point •
Running thence North 5° 59' 20" West a distance of 435.99 
feet to a point . v/-- • ' -—
Running thence South 8 8° 07' 50" West a distance of 806.08 
feet to a point
Running thence South 11° 54' 00" East a distance of 458.87 feet to a point at or about the center line of Old Tarrytown 
Road
Running thence North 72° 43' 00" West a distance of 14.60 
feet at or about the center line of Old Tarrytown Road
Running thence South 89° 14' 00" West a distance of 254.50 
feet at or about the center line of Old Tarrytown Road
Running thence North 8 8° 45' 00" West a distance of 40.50 
feet at or about the center line of Old Tarrytown Road
Running thence South 59° 34' 00" West a distance of 21.00 
feet at or about the center line of Old Tarrytown Road
Running thence South 81° 26' 00" West a distance of 56.53 
feet at or about the center line of Old Tarrytown Road
Running thence South 87° 22' 00" West a distance of 284.92 
feet at or about the center line of Old Tarrytown Road
Running thence South 74° 11' 00" West a distance of 59.78 
feet at or about the center line of Old Tarrytown Road
Running thence North 8 8° 22' 00" West a distance of 89.15 
feet at or about the center line of Old Tarrytown Road
Running thence southerly a distance of approximately 25 fee 
to the northeasterly corner of lands now or formerly of 
Mount Vernon Trap Rock Corporation being at the intersect of the westerly boundary of Manhattan Park as shown on R. 
Map #1015 on a course South 3° 56' 20" West a distance of 
248.20 feet
Running thence South 3° 25' 20" West a distance of 
approximately 316.4 feet to a point
Running thence South 8 6° 20' 05" West a distance 'of 723 ."9
feet to a point_ /

- 11 -

H O



Running thence North 62° 1 2 ' 4 9" «<=>,= +- * j -feet to a point West a distance of 2 5 7 . 5 9

Running thence North 55°30' 30"west»,a-*feet to a point at or about the centt'a dlsta*ce of 348.34Road center lme of-Knollwood
Running thence North 28° 4 1 ' 3 0" r-e4. ..
feet at or about the center line o* of 142-82known as Route 100A) 1 °‘ Knollwood Road (also
Running thence North 3 ° 4 ' 23" West , *at or about the center line of ^stance of 93.84 feetRoute 100AJ ilne °‘ Kn°Hwood Road (also known as
Running thence North 39 ° 25' 1 0 »  r , . *  _ . .feet at or about the center lirL * a distance of 233.07known as Route 100A) 1 1  f Knollw°od Road (also
Running thence North 28° 23* 3 0 " ,  j •at or about the center line o* a.1distance of 7.9 feeRoute 100A) Knollwooc Road (also known a

approximately6^ ^ ^44 or"aboSt a.distar‘ce cf
Knollwood Hold (also known is 100*" Une °f
Running thence North 35° is* nnn

l i n e  s K 2 -17

s : pointRoad 7 1  from the westerly side of Knollwooc
Running thence North 10° 25' 50" Wes* approximately 4n s  fa.f *.« 3 . weSl\ a distance or
to be imoediatelv adiace-t f p°‘nt Sii- line being intended Village of z l S f L d  3 t0 the b°ode_- of the
Running thence North 80° 15' 3 0 "  w»<t  - . .  .

Running thence North 8 ° 31' 5 n n r - . f  ,  j • .
feet along the eagerly borde° o' ?£e SorfinT °l f12/26 to the southerly side of Payne Street P Brook Parkway

in



- • _— *j_nvenue
•Running thence n orth erlv ' ""

*••* s  ? h r “ t« « c tfojer  * «•*•»«. , f
Montgomery Avenue Payne St« e t  and the wesle^y side^l

A v e £ 0? ' e ‘ h" ° W' Sp ' i «  ‘^the
Running thence easterlv
d ista n t m ' g S I r S ' S *  * f e V S ^ ' 1 --'
Running thence J T  ' S '

venue; a distance o* 400
Running thence ««,.* , *U0 feet

K l s ^ S f S ^ ^ y i S g r . j o .
County “ erk°ro?? Map, No‘ 1 5 5 4 4 filed in 1967 5 0fflce Division of Land WestchesternC Re<=ords on August 2C

S i  a ' S ^  » '  West a distance of 300.00

S i  « *  °7' west a distance of 30S.30
Running thence South 8 2° n-j* „ eet to a point 0 West a distance of 235.sc

S i  ethpo\Cn'tSOUth ” * 2 7 1 west a distance of 3 e . 30

feet'tl athpeotn\SOUth « *  » •  00- West a distance of 7 0 4 . 3 0 1

feet'tl a^point N° rt31 10‘ 45' West a distance of ,7 3 . 5

athpecfretSOUth « •  °5' 30" West a distance cf «;,,£

- 13-



Running thence South 42* 23' 2 0" Uac*. a •feet to a point West a distance of 53.08
•i ' ■

Running thence South 12° 58’ 2 0"feet to a point . ■ est a distance of 72.54
Running thence South 81* 5 7 ' an- w..*feet to a point 40 West a distance of 36.23
Running thence South 69° 09' 30" West , a ■feet to a point West a distance of 5 4 . 1 3

Running thence South 40° 26' 30" West afeet to a point West a distance of 75.29
Running thence South 71° li* 4 0" west »feet to a point west a distance of 100.90
Running thence South 5 7 ° 1 5 ' 2 0" West =, a -feet to a point West a distance of 1 0 0 . 3 9

Running thence South 7 9 ° 2 2 ' in" ..feet to a point 1 0 WeSt a dlstance if 46.87
Running thence South 55° 41’ 30" West *feet to a point west a distance of 77.8S
Running thence South 55° 57' 50" West a a -feet to a point a dis^nce of 91.22
Running thence South 42° on* nn* . a •feet to a point 00 West a ^stance of 100.60
Running thence South 59° 08' 50" West * , .feet to a point West dlstance of 48.26
Running thence South 7 9 ° 1 9 • nn" w « 4. , a -feet to a point West a dlstance of IS.60
Running thence South 89# 03' 1 0 " west »feet to a point West dlstance of 26.25
Running thence northwesterly a distance cc *less to the westerly side of L !  Jff? !• f £eet more or
Road ?Route1 w efr.dyt K e ^  “M l l ' w v e ' r ’ * 1D r i v e 9A ?d the aoutherly side of Fairview Pa-k 
t= end a —

- 14-



Running thence along the we s e ■>-1 v - _
Road (Route 9A, e distance Sf’l & J j l o V ^ n t " "
Running thence along the westerlv .u. e-
Road (Route 9A) Sou?h 17* Vo* U "  £!?- 1 *iV!'Mil1- River feet to a point £ast a distance of 36.86
Running thence along the * -Road (Route 9A) South 18° 3 7 * in- of Saw Mill Riverfeet to a point 37 50 East a dlstance of 832.06

Roadi”i = ^ n i , isi°un?ht^ . wn - efol? m i  ° * s*vfeet to a point 30 EaSt a distance of 272.4

m ? 0inIeett?n:ecein ??Lia'"1r: % r 4Jh2^ i? ^  W“ h a » « » •  of 55.53 feet to a point 4 21 09 a distance of
Running thence South 81° 00' 20" West * j j .*feet to a point West a distance of 768.04
Running thence South 5 ° 2 9 ' i n "  u aea. ,  j .feet to a point WeSt a dlstance of 630.84
Running thence North 56' 31' 4 0" ^  a
£  £  S a % S ? S * 5 B « S l r X S t S S y  l i n e  ° f  l a a a “ ° ‘  ° h e 5N e 6; :1

Running thence along the easterly line o* e>,-j
fse:Ci f a PpoDi n f rth 5* 5°' 5°' of 1 2 < . 67

2 SB!1 S L ^ “ tta,̂ f f L S £ ! rS  hine of “ ia N.y.c.RR.p.n
anoint* “ diUS Cf t

to°the *!« ft having
i i ” i S V ” V . e s s ; 1  a n , l e  o £  2 5 * 0 1 ' o o " a  d i s t a n «

tiiHil at h ; S I ' t N C r t h  ” *  4 6 '  2 ° "  H e S t  a  »f 722.C0

-15-



Running thence northerly on a curve to the u
radius of 1399.39 feet/. « « « ” « £ . £  W ?  b- distance of 260.28 feet to a point 39 25 a
Running thence North 73* 09' 00" feet to a point East a distance of 15.44
Running thence North 73° feet to a point 39' 00" East a distance of 1.82

Running thence northerly 
radius of 1382.89 feet, a 
distance of 426.39 feet'

on a curve to the right 
central angle of 17° 39

having a 
' 5 8"'a

Running thence North 24° feet to a point 46' 20" West a distance of 250.00

Running thence northerlv radius of 1004.41 feet, 
distance of 395.38 feet

on a curve to the left having a central angle of 2 2 ° 3 3 ' 1 5 " to a point
aa

Running thence North 4 7 ° 1 9 ' feet to a point 35" West a distance of 270.70

Running thence North 57’ feet to a point 46' 20" West a distance cf 504.2

linei 5 r 2 2 ^  S*?9 alon5 the northerly and easterlvliSI o?fi.n^Y ’C*RR'P*5 ' aS it: winds along the southerly ‘ line of lands now or formerly of the County of Westchesterto a point located at the southeasterly corner of lands 
shown on a certain map entitled "Westchester Lichtinc Co
c l ? r ? said “ p filed in the of1 J Wes5chefter County, Division of Land Records, on
197~feet ^  Ma? N°* 5673; being approximately a distance cf

Running thence still along said northerly and easterly line 
of said"N.Y.C.RR.P.D.," North 75" 32* 5 5 " West 78*f94 fie*' to a point ieew
Running thence in a northwesterly direction, alone a curve

SIT1??.* raffus of 6 2 1 * 78 feet' an interior angle of 62 24 40 , a distance of 677.29 feet to a point
tbence still along said "N.Y.C.RR.P.d .," North 13e 15 West 933.97 feet to a point

- 16-



Running thence still along said railroad, on a curve to the right in a generally northeasterly direction, said curve 
having an interior angle of 69° 57' 15", a radius of 754.32 feet and a distance of 920.97 feet_to_a point .
Running thence still along said railroad North 56° 49' East 351.24 feet to a point
Running thence still along said railraod, in a generally 
northerly direction, on a curve to the left, having a radius of 811.78 feet, an interior angle of 21° 35’ 46", a distance of 305.98 feet to a point
Running thence still along said railroad, North 35* 13’ 14" 
East 752.69 feet to a point on the southwesterly line of Ole Saw Mill River Road, as the same is shown on the aforesaid filed Map No. 5673
Running thence continuing on a prolongation of said line to 
a point in said Old Saw Mill River Road at the division line 
between the Town of Greenbrugh on the South and the Town of Mount Pleasant on the North
Running thence along said division line on a line generally 
parallel with the following 2 courses and distances
South 48° 26' 56" East 377.83 feet to a point
South 48° 56* 36" East 30.22 feet to a point, said point being a prolongation of the division line between lands N/F 
of James Butler and/or Emipire City Racing Association, anc 
lands N/F Westchester Lighting Co. as shown on the aforesai 
Map No. 5673
Thence continuing along said division line between the Towr. 
of Mount Pleasant on th North and the Town of Greenburgh cr. 
the South on a line gnerally parallel to the following 6 
courses and distances
On a curve to the left, in a generally Easterly direction, 
having a radius of 1946.86 feet, a central angle of 1° 48’ 
38", a distance of 61.52 feet to a point
Thence continuing along said division in the same manner, 
South 34° 45’ 00" West 45.54 feet to a point
South 55° 15’ 00" East 102.00 feet to a point
North 34® 45r 00" East 41.97 feet to a point

- 17-



Thence continuing in an easterly direction, along a curve tc 
the left, having a radius of 1946.86 feet, a central angle 
of 2° 23' 15", a distance of 81.125 feet to a point
Thence continuing along said Town division line, in the sane 
manner, the following 14 courses and distances
South 57° 37' 16" East 373.84 feet
South 57° 53' 1 0 " East 43.33 feet
South 63* 2 0 ’ 30" East 64.27 feet
South 6 8° 16’ 40" East 63.98 feet
South 71° 57* 2 0" East 48.14 feet
South 75° 31' 00" East 167.65 feet
South 75° 03' 30" East 417.19 feet
South 71° 58' 00" East 46.04 feet
South 70° 36’ 00" East 53.02 feet
South 67° 40’ 50" East 36.36 feet
South 6 6° 14’ 50" East 71.78 feet
South 63° 42’ 50" East 155.58 feet
South 63° 47’ 50" East 376.04 feet
Running thence along a curve to the
southeasterly airecnor., n « v i i ' i ; ” , z r central angle of 53° 14’ 00", a distance of 830.73 feet me: 
or less, to a point on the aforesaid Town division line, c the intersection of Old Saw Mill River Road and Grasslancs 
Road (a/k/a Lower Cross Road)
Running thence from said point, continuing along easte-lv division line between said Towns, in a generally easterly 
direction, all as shown on filed Map No. 1879, sheet 67, t 
a point being the prolongation of the Westerly line thlSn on map as 'Property To Be Acquired By The City
New York"

- 18-



Running thence from said point, continuing along said 
division line between the Town of Mount Pleasant on the North, and the Town of Greenburgh on the South, in a •*'' generally Easterly direction, all as shown _on_filed Map 
No. 1863, sheet 52, to a point and the Easterly boundary of lands shown on Map No. 1879, sheet 67, as "Property To Be Acquired By The City of New York", said easterly line more 
particularly shown on filed Map No. 1863
Continuing along said division line, in a generally southeasterly direction, and generally parallel to the northerly taking lines shown on filed Maps Nos. 19736, 
19319, 12821 and 19920,' 19993, 19317 and 19484, respectively, to a point where said division line intersect 
the easterly side of Knowllwood Road, at the point or place 
of BEGINNING.

/
19-



Exhibit 2



TO : ANTHONY F. VETERAN, SUPERVISOR
FROM : LARRY J. NARDECCHIA, JR., P.E.
RE : STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO FORM

VILLAGE OF MAYFAIR-KNOLLWOOD

I am a resident of the Town of Greenburgh, a 
registered voter, and a person qualified to vote for town 

offices in the Town of Greenburgh.

I am the duly appointed Town Engineer of the Town 

of Greenburgh. I have been employed by the Town in this 

capacity for .;<= past four yesrs. Pri' r to that I Served = 
the Ccmr;;_ssioner of Public Works for the Town of New Casrie 
for three years; as the Building Inspector, Village Engineer 

and Highway Superintendent for the Village of Dobbs Ferry 

for three years; and as an Assistant Engineer for the City 

of New Rochelle for 17 years. I have a Bachelors Degree in 

Civil Engineering from Manhattan College, a Masters in 
Public Administration from Pace University and am a Licensed 

Professional Engineer licensed by the State of New York, 

License No. 56570.
I ha\e a total of 27 years experience working for 

local governments which includes an part of the regular 

course of my duties the review of property descriptions to 

determine their sufficiency.

124



I have carefully examined the property description 
in the petition (Exhibit A). Based on my analysis I submit 
the following objections and urge you to reject the petition 
as invalid because the property description does not 
describe an area with "common certainty".

At one time, land was recorded with descriptions 
of natural or artificial features of the terrain such as 
streams and stone walls. As years passed and land was 

developed, many of these features ceased to exist. Needless 

to say, numerous disputes resulted. It became more common 

to describe lengths and directions of boundaries by compass 

and measurements. When bearings and lengths are given to 
describe a tract of land, the description is by "metes and 

bounds". This system d:tes bac< t< color.;?.! da\s and is 

u. »c ir most of the «a5 corn part of the United Sfat*-s. yv.e 

describer locates a corner of the property and follows the 

directions and the distances of the property lines until the 

perimeter is described back to the starting point.

A metes and bounds description uses mathematic 

precision to locate each and every point on a perimeter cf a 

many sided figure (polygon). Through this system every 

point may be computed to give an accurate finite distance 

north from the Equator (Latitude) and an accurate finite 

distance east from the Prime Meridian (Longitude) of a giver, 

point frorri a previous point in the description.

The compass reading or direction of the property 

line is given in one of the four quadrants (N.E., S.E.,

-2- 125



N.W., or S.W.). The angles are never more than 90° and they 
are taken from either the north meridian or the south 

meridian, whichever gives the lesser angle. Therefore by 
giving a bearing which can be translated to an angle for 
trigonometric calculation and a finite distance [not an 
approximate (±) distance] we give a unique location of the 
described property point. If the metes and bounds 

description was complete it would return to the point of 
beginning and create a unique one-of-a-kind polygon.

This system could tie into any other system using 
the same datum. Surveyors in the Town of Greenburgh base 

their surveys on the United States Coast and Geodetic System 

(USC&GS) which has markers throughout Westchester County, 

its vities, J villages. It apperrs that this
description has started its descriptive process in the same 

datum system currently in use in the Town of Greenburgh.

All metes and bounds descriptions are supposed to 

begin at a known point on the filed map. This description 

does not begin by referring to a known point on a filed map. 

Therefore, the whole description cannot be tied in, with 

certainty, to the entire land records system of Westchester 
County.

This d.-ficiency is further compounded by the f-ict 

that the esntc. -line of Grasslands Road or. which the 

description .begins has been altered by the New York State 

Department of Transportation which means that at this 

location the center-line might not be on the Town boundary

-3- 126



line. It cannot be supposed which center-line of Grasslands 

Road is referred to, the new one or the old one, from the 
description given.

In general, the description then runs rather 

consistently as a metes and bounds description for the first 
eleven pages.

At page 11, line 26, the property description then 
deviates from being a metes and bounds description because 

terms like "thence southerly" without a bearing and 

"approximately 25 feet" without a finite distance appear.

At this point, the unique location in relation to latitude 

and longitude of the next point cannot continue with 

accuracy. For instance, at page 11, line 26, no bearing or 

c..s' -/.re i- _ ver. :o than at this point the description •_r 
the parcel cannot be continued with certainty. There is no 

way to determine in what direction the boundary line is 

intended to proceed, or for what distance. The polygon 

being described has lost its mathematical uniqueness and no 

longer continues as a valid metes and bounds description.

If this were the only point of deficiency a forced closure 

could compute the bearing and distance giving a unique 

description. However, this inconsistency occurs 13 more 

times in the following 7 p^ges thus creating 1c separate 

piece? of a description which are not linked together.

On page 12, line 24, no distance or bearing is 

given, creating a second point of discontinuity.

ii -4- 127



On page 13, line 2, no bearing is given and the 
distance is only approximate. Therefore, it's impossible to 
determined in which direction the line goes and its length 
thus creating a third point of discontinuity.

On page 13, line 6, no bearing is given and the 

distance is only approximate. In likewise manner, this 

creates a fourth point of total discontinuity.
On page 13, line 10, no bearing is given and we do 

not know in which direction the property line proceeds 

creating a fifth point of discontinuity.
On page 13, line 13, no bearing is give since one 

cannot go off at a right angle from a preceding line whose 

bearing line was not given. At this point, we have 

.p.. * t h.- t.-: ,r anc have a sixth poir.L _f

discontinuity.
On page 13, line 16, we have no bearing and the 

description only says that it is parallel to another 

bearing. This is indeterminate and cannot be used for the 

continuity of a description. This creates a seventh point 

of discontinuity.
On page 13, line 20, no bearing nor distance are 

given, creating an eighth point of total discontinuity.
Or. pa’ge 14, lire 31, nc braring a-d cr.ly ar. 

aprreximate distance is given, creating a ninth poi.ii or 

discontinuity. 7
r  »

On page 15, line 12, the curve is defined with a 

central angle, but by computing, . i's cbvious that the curve

f -5- 128



is net tangent to the preceding property line nor the 
following property line. Therefore, two radials or a chord 
and bearing would have to be used for this description. 
Neither of these is supplied and there would be an infinite 
number of curves proposed without further definition. This 

creates a tenth point of discontinuity.
On page 16, line 20, the description given is an 

extension of a straight line and has no bearing at all, with 
only an aproximate distance. This obviously creates an 

eleventh point of discontinuity.

On page 17, line 15, the prolongation as it is 

stated has no bearing nor has a distance been given, 

creating a twelfth point of discontinuity.
Or. pace 17, line IP, "general 1; parallel" meets r: 

descriptive criteria whatsoever since you must gc from a 

specific point to another specific point. This neither 

starts nor ends at either. Parallel is a descriptive term, 

defining an infinite number of points all the same distance 

from a given line. The description makes that term one of 

generality, creating a thirteenth point of discontinuity.
On page 17, line 29, the same generality is used 

and meets no descriptive criteria for an unique polygon, 

creating a fourteenth pcr'nt of discontinuity. The actual 

area of this fijure cannot be computed until there is an 

accurate (closed) figure to work from.
In a separate instance the text quotes "the 

following 14 courses and distances" and proceeds to only

129
-6-



supply 13, on page 18. Certainly the missing link could 
represent acres in area not to mention conflict with all the 

physical field locations of roads, rails, walls and rivers. 
This creates at least a fifteenth point of discontinuity.

The last two pages of the description turn into a 
litany of towns, owners, and filed maps which cannot equate 
into a mathematical translation necessary to constitute a 

metes and bounds description. Though it might be possible 
to extrapolate a metes and bounds description from these 

filed maps, depending on their content, the preparer for 

some reason chose to lump these sides together merely by 

telling us where to look. However none of these maps were 
filed with the Town of Greenburgh nor did I have copies 

Mtrr.g ray 2U0C maps in ••■ur files.
In general the description has 15 voids alw.-.g its 

course and a last series of unknown number of sides which 

was net even described rendering it unusable for a metes and 

bounds description, or any kind of description with "common 

certainty". As a description it bounces from one system to 

another and finally to mere references as to' where the 

information can be found without any specifics. This last 

case makes this totally defective for any type of 

description.
Eased on my 2? years of experience ic is my 

opinion that the property description does not in fact

130



describe an area of land with common certainty due to the 
omissions and inaccuracies as defined herein.

Respectfully submitted,

(Town of Greenburgh)

- £ -
1 3 J