IN RE: VILLAGE OF HAVERSTRAW

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: VILLAGE OF HAVERSTRAW, respondent, v. RAY RIVER CO., INC., et al., appellants.

Decided: May 26, 2009

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, ANITA R. FLORIO, and RUTH C. BALKIN, JJ. Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Michael Rikon of counsel), for appellants. Watkins & Watkins, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (John E. Watkins, Jr., and Liane V. Watkins of counsel), for respondent.

In a condemnation proceeding pursuant to EDPL 402, inter alia, for authorization to file an acquisition map, the claimants Ray River Co., Inc., and Haverstraw Riverfront, Inc., appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (La Cava, J.), entered March 27, 2008, which, upon an order of the same court dated December 14, 2007, among other things, granted the petition.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

 “Having failed to comply with the requirements of EDPL 207 by filing a timely petition for review of the condemnor's determination in this court, the appellants ‘may not circumvent the command of the statute with respect to the procedures governing judicial review by raising [their] objection ․ within the context of an article 4 vesting proceeding’ ” (Matter of City of New Rochelle v. O. Mueller, Inc., 191 A.D.2d 435, 435, 594 N.Y.S.2d 301, quoting Metropolitan Transp. Auth. v. Pinelawn Cemetery, 135 A.D.2d 686, 688-689, 522 N.Y.S.2d 586;  see Matter of Town of Southold [Town Hall Expansion Project ], 50 A.D.3d 1045, 1046, 854 N.Y.S.2d 906;  Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Patchogue v. Simon, 112 A.D.2d 374, 491 N.Y.S.2d 827).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition for authorization to file an acquisition map referable to the subject property (see Matter of New York City School Constr. Auth., 286 A.D.2d 441, 441, 730 N.Y.S.2d 241;  Matter of City of New Rochelle v. O. Mueller, Inc., 191 A.D.2d at 435, 594 N.Y.S.2d 301;  Metropolitan Transp. Auth. v. Pinelawn Cemetery, 135 A.D.2d at 688-689, 522 N.Y.S.2d 586).   To the extent that the appellants allege that they have sustained damages as a result of a denial of their due process rights (see Brody v. Village of Port Chester, 434 F.3d 121, 127), such damages, if warranted, may be determined in a proceeding pursuant to EDPL 501(B) (see Brody v. Village of Port Chester, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61604, 2008 WL 3398111 [S.D.N.Y.2008] ).

The appellants' remaining contention is without merit.

Copied to clipboard