State Board of Public Welfare Board of Managers v Coleman Brief of Appellants
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1960

32 pages
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Greenberg v. Veteran Reply Affidavit, 1990. 5cbe8e70-b49a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0ec62f81-672d-46cb-87da-201821cffa37/greenberg-v-veteran-reply-affidavit. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of MYLES GREENBERG and FRANCES M. MULLIGAN, Petitioners, -against- ANTHONY F. VETERAN, et al.. Respondents. 89 Civ. 0591 (GLG) REPLY AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK )) ss.: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) PAUL J. PETRETTI, P.E., L.S., being sworn, states: 1. I am a licensed professional engineer and a licensed professional land surveyor in the State of New York. My office is at 30 Gould Avenue, Dobbs Ferry, New York. I submit this reply affidavit in support of respondents' motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. 2. I have reviewed the description of the proposed Village of Mayfair Knollwood, as well as the statement of Larry J. Nardecchia, Jr. regarding the description, and the affidavit of Donald J. DeBerardinis submitted on this motion. I understand that the nature of the motion does not lend itself to a point-by-point response to petitioners' opposing papers. Accordingly, I will simply set out background facts and terminology that I believe will be of assistance to the Court in considering this motion. intended description. For this reason, a mixed descriptive system with one problem lacks common certainty. 7. The Mayfair Knollwood incorporation descrip tion does, indeed, alternate between metes and bounds and filed map references. Thus, forced closure is not possible. 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, line 12) Both sides agree — and I concur — that the curve data given is mathematically inconsistent. In their opposing papers, petitioners assume that the central angle measurement is incorrect, and they would use the other two components to try to "back into" the intended central angle. (DeBerardinis Aff. 1 9[1]) 9. The mathematical inconsistency here, however, is gross. My analysis suggests that there may be an error in more than one of the components in the description. Accord ingly, a reconciliation is not possible by a technique of backing into the curve. As a result of the inconsistency, the end point of the curve cannot be established. All subsequent courses and distances are affected by the error and are therefore uncertain. 10. At other points in the description, movement along the division line between the Town of Mount Pleasant 4 and the Town of Greenburgh, "generally parallel" to identi fied courses and distances, is set forth. (Boundary Descript ion, p. 17, 11. 19, 29) "Generally parallel" is not a recognized surveying term. Even Mr. DeBerardinis does not claim familiarity with the term, although he does not try to interpret its intended meaning here. (DeBerardinis Aff. UK 9[o] & [p]) The use of the term in the context of this particular part of the description only adds to the uncertainty. 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 obtain several filed maps in order to complete the description. It is not enough to say, as Mr. DeBerardinis does, that the maps themselves are accurate. (DeBerardinis Aff. K 9[r]) It appears to me that whoever assembled this description ran out of steam and opted for a shortcut instead of properly calling out the courses and distances on the maps. All this only adds to the uncertainty of the description. 12. As noted earlier, I have not tried to critique the entire Mayfair Knollwood description. However, on the basis of the matters set forth above, in my professional 5 opinion, the description does not set forth the boundaries of the proposed village with common certainty. Paul J. Petretti, P.E., L.S. Sworn to before me this day of February 1990 ANNE B PSOtA Noury Public. State of N e w * * * No 4875594 Qualified in Westchester County Commission Expires December 15, 6