GRASSROOTS FOR GREENBURGH
E-Mail: grassrootsforgreenburgh@att.net
August 15, 2006
VILLAGES' MOTION TO INTERVENE IN "BERNSTEIN II" LAWSUIT DENIED BY STATE SUPREME COURT
The following context for this most recent decision is provided by Robert Bernstein, Esq., petitioner pro se.
A state supreme court judge yesterday ruled that Greenburgh's six villages have no legal right to intervene in an Article 78 suit that I brought this past spring against Greenburgh and its supervisor challenging their practice of charging only taxpayers in unincorporated Greenburgh for the town's costs of parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities that are open town-wide. The suit, if successful, could shift to the entire town, including its six villages, as much as $10 million in taxes currently charged only to the town's unincorporated areas. The ruling comes on the heels of a July 28 ruling which denied Greenburgh's motion to stay the action pending disposition of its appeal of the prior court ruling in my favor that the town acted unlawfully in charging only taxpayers in unincorporated Greenburgh for the town's costs of acquiring and operating the town parkland known as Taxter Ridge. Earlier this year, the villages were denied leave to file an amicus brief in support of the town's position on the appeal.
The town had supported the village's motion to intervene and the supervisor had appeared at several village board meetings this spring urging the villages to spend thousands of dollars hiring outside counsel for the purpose of joining forces with the town in opposing my lawsuit. The villages approved the expenditure, hired the White Plains law firm of Keane & Beane, and moved to intervene.
A copy of yesterday's ruling denying their application is provided below. It states in pertinent part as follows:
"The issues before the Court are closely related to those involved in an earlier Article 78 proceeding brought by the petitioner against the respondent. The earlier matter is presently on appeal before the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division has denied the proposed interveners the opportunity to file an amicus brief in that matter. Contrary to the assertion of the interveners, the standard for filing an amicus brief is less stringent than that for granting intervention.
"The proposed interveners have failed to show that they possess a 'legally cognizable claim." Their position in support of intervention is that they represent individuals who would be adversely affected by the outcome of this action. The villages themselves would not be directly affected. Accordingly, the motion to permit intervention is denied."
|
Village
Intervention Motion Denied.pdf (82 KB) [GfG Note: See also: Bernstein Opposition to Villages as Intervener-Respondents.pdf (58 KB)] Please note: These documents are provided in Adobe PDF format, which requires the free Adobe reader, available at the Adobe web site.
|
