Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: TOWN OF MONTAUK, INC., appellant, v. George E. PATAKI, etc., et al., respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to enjoin the Town of East Hampton, s/h/a the Town Board Government of the Town of East Hampton, from all planning, permitting, use, taxation, and governance of lands located in Montauk, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Loughlin, J.), dated June 20, 2005, which denied the amended petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The amended petition in this CPLR article 78 proceeding was properly denied, since the petitioner has no standing to bring this proceeding (see Rudder v. Pataki, 93 N.Y.2d 273, 278, 689 N.Y.S.2d 701, 711 N.E.2d 978). The petitioner, “Town of Montauk, Inc.,” is not an established corporation, since it has filed no incorporation papers with the Department of State (see Business Corporation Law § 403; Not-For-Profit Corporation Law §§ 403, 904 [a] ). Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the Court of Appeals did not recognize it as a corporation, or as the governing body of Montauk, in People v. Vorpahl, 2 N.Y.3d 781, 780 N.Y.S.2d 306, 812 N.E.2d 1255.
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to show that it is the successor corporation to the original incorporated Proprietors of Montauk. Chapter 139 of the Laws of 1852 incorporated the Proprietors of Montauk, also making it the first Trustee with governing powers over Montauk. However, there is no showing of the succession to the Proprietors of Montauk ending with the petitioner. Indeed, in 1879, all of Montauk was sold to Arthur W. Benson, eliminating the need for a trustee corporation.
Moreover, the petitioner's contention that the Town of East Hampton is not a legitimate governing entity is without merit. A municipal corporation is a political subdivision of the State having only the authority delegated to it by the State (see N.Y. Const. art. IX, § 2; Matter of Ames v. Smoot, 98 A.D.2d 216, 217, 471 N.Y.S.2d 128). Chapter 64 of the Laws of 1788 established the Town of East Hampton, specifically including Montauk. The Town of East Hampton is therefore a legitimate municipal corporation with the authority to govern Montauk (see Town Law § 2; Matter of Perry v. Town of Cherry Val., 307 N.Y. 427, 430, 121 N.E.2d 402).
Accordingly, the petitioner has no basis for its claims of injury and therefore cannot establish standing (see Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 773-774, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 08, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)