IN RE: James BARNARD (2007)

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Village Law article 2 to review a determination of Christopher St. Lawrence, in his capacity as the Supervisor of the Town of Ramapo, dated July 30, 2004, which, after a hearing, determined that the petition for the incorporation of the proposed Village of Ladentown was not legally sufficient, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), entered November 2, 2006, which, upon an order of the same court dated January 28, 2005, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the order is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520[c] );  and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In support of his determination that the petition for incorporation of a village was not legally sufficient, Christopher St. Lawrence, in his capacity as Supervisor of the Town of Ramapo, found that the petitioners failed to attach, to the petition, a complete and accurate list of the “regular inhabitants” of the territory sought to be incorporated (Village Law § 2–202 [1] [c][2];  see Matter of Baker v. Heaney, 15 A.D.3d 577, 578, 791 N.Y.S.2d 573;  Matter of Elevitch v. Colello, 168 A.D.2d 681, 682, 563 N.Y.S.2d 680;  Matter of Luria v. Conklin, 139 A.D.2d 650, 527 N.Y.S.2d 288;  Matter of Incorporation of Vil. of Viola Hills, 129 A.D.2d 579, 580, 514 N.Y.S.2d 79).  He also found that the petitioners failed to attach a description of the territory's boundary that would enable the territory to be identified with “common certainty” (Village Law § 2–202[1][c][1];  see Matter of Incorporation of Vil. of Viola Hills, 129 A.D.2d at 580, 514 N.Y.S.2d 79;  cf. People ex rel. Underwood v. Board of Trustees of Vil. of Patchogue, 217 N.Y. 466, 468–469, 112 N.E. 169).  Contrary to the petitioners' contentions, his findings are not “illegal, based on insufficient evidence, or contrary to the weight of evidence” (Village Law § 2–210[1] ).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed his determination (see Village Law § 2–210[1];  Matter of Baker v. Heaney, 15 A.D.3d at 578, 791 N.Y.S.2d 573;  Matter of Elevitch v. Colello, 168 A.D.2d at 682, 563 N.Y.S.2d 680;  Matter of Luria v. Conklin, 139 A.D.2d at 650, 527 N.Y.S.2d 288;  Matter of Incorporation of Vil. of Viola Hills, 129 A.D.2d at 580, 514 N.Y.S.2d 79).

The petitioners' remaining contentions are either not properly before this court (see Matter of Stoves & Stone, Ltd. v. Martinez, 17 A.D.3d 683, 684, 794 N.Y.S.2d 94;  Matter of Mittleberg v. Shaffer, 141 A.D.2d 645, 645–646, 529 N.Y.S.2d 545;  Matter of David v. Christian, 134 A.D.2d 349, 350, 520 N.Y.S.2d 826;  Matter of Hirsch v. Shaffer, 108 A.D.2d 815, 485 N.Y.S.2d 327;  Matter of Curry v. Blum, 73 A.D.2d 965, 424 N.Y.S.2d 450), or without merit.