Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
COLINTY OF RICHMOND
------x
In the Matter of a Proceeding under Article 78 of the
CPLR for a Writ of Mandamus,
AFFIRMATION IN
OPPOSITION TO
PETITIONER'S
ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE
Index No. 80154/15
the
Courts of the State of New York, afirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury
pursuant to Section 2106 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (hereinafter "CPLR"):
1.
Zachary W. Carter,
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, attorney for the Respondent James Oddo in his
offcial capacity as Borough President of Staten Island. I am fully familiar with the facts and
circumstances set forth herein based upon the records of the City of New York and conversations
2.
to Show Cause by petitioner Mount Builders LLC seeking an order "enforcing the Decision and
Order
of this Court,
dated November
Respondent James Oddo in his official capacity as Borough President of Staten Island to comply
3.
James Oddo
fully complied with this Court's November 9, 2015 Order. To the extent that
petitioner is arguing that the actions taken by the Borough President's Office subsequent to the
Court Order were arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion, those arguments must be
raised
herein and
in
the
accompanying Affidavit of Robert E. Englert, R.A. ("Englert Affidavit"), those actions were
entirely rational and reasonable.
4.
to
of
house numbers
for its
proposed
development at 239 Fingerboard Road, Staten Island, New York, Block 3019, Lot 120.1 In its
Prayer for Relief, petitioner requested an order and judgment "fc]ompelling Respondent James
Oddo to issue house number[sJ for the Development." (emphasis added). No other specific
5.
on behalf of Respondent James Oddo in his Offrcial Capacity as Staten Island Borough
President, the Court issued an Order dated November 9,2015.
6.
in no
uncertain terms that "[t]he petition before this Courl is limited to the issue of whether the
Borough President is required to provide house numbers to Petitioner." (emphasis added).
Pursuant to New York City Charter Section 82(3), the Office of the Staten Island Borough President
maintains a Topographical Bureau to, arnong otlier things, issue and record house uurnbers.
Bureau completed the site plan submitted by petitioner by entering the names of three streets
(Cupidity Drive, Fourberie Lane, and Avidita Place) and numbers for 176 dwellings thereon.
See Englert
Affidavit
8.
at
flfl 15 and20-21.
the site map to the Office of the Staten Island Borough President and requested new street
names.
See
Exhibit A.
g.
On or about December
Il,
10.
Offrce of the Staten Island Borough President, issued a response to petitioner's December
10,
2015 letter stating, in sum and substance, that the Topographical Bureau does not have any
procedures in place for an applicant to challenge the issuance of street names. See Exhibit B.
ARGUMENT
A.
The Office of the Staten Island Borough President fully complied with this Court's
Order
I
1.
The instant motion must be denied as the Office of the Staten Island
Borough President fully complied with both the letter and the "spirit" of the Coutl's November
9,2015 Order.
12.
is clear from the Petition and this Court's November 9,2075 Order, the sole issue raised
is
"whether the Borough President is required to provide house numbers to Petitioner." (emphasis
added). Once the Court answered that question in the affirmative, the Office of the Staten Island
Borough President was required to issue house numbers. As set forth in the Englert Affidavit,
the Topographical Bureau issued house numbers for each house proposed to be constructed. See
13.
any way could be read to limit the Borough President's discretion in selecting street names. As
such,
if
petitioner wants to challenge the issuance of the street names on the ground that the
Borough President abused his discretion, he must file a new Article 78 proceeding.
B.
The rejection of Petitioneros preferred street names and the selection of replacement
names were well within the discretion afforded the Borough President.
14.
decision to issue the three street names for the proposed development, it should conclude that the
Borough President was well within his discretion to reject the names proposed by petitioner and
select names that
15.
The fact that Petitioner is displeased with the names that were ultimately
selected does not transform an otherwise rational decision into an arbitrary and capricious one.
Petitioner itself concedes that the Borough President has discretion in this area. See Affirmation
of Richard G. Leland ("Leland Affirmation") at fl 20. That discretion was not abused.
16. As
thoroughly detailed
Topographical Bureau has established internal policies and procedures to guide it in the selection
of names for private roadways. See Englert Affidavit at flfl 8-14. In the first
instance, the
Topographical Bureau asks a developer to provide a list of prefened street names. See id. at fl 8.
This act of goodwill, however, does not require the Borough President to use the preferred names
or obtain an applicant's approval prior to selecting alternative names. Indeed, as stated by Mr.
in which all
Topographical Bureau selected "names that were not among those proposed by the developer."
Id. at fl 13.
17.4
number
of considerations
process, chief among these is the concern that the proposed street name does not resemble, in
whole or in part, or sound similar to, an existing street name. See Englert Affidavit at fl
names are too similar, there
9. If
location, which obviously can have tragic consequences. This concern led to the rejection of five
of the nine names preferred by the developer. See id. at n 17. Other names were rejected
because they were too lengthy to properly
See
names were rejected out of concerns that they would inflame the controversy that has engulfed
this proposed development since its inception. See id. at fl 19. As the Topographical Bureau
adhred to its well established procedures for the review of proposed street namss, its rejection
of the names proposed by the petitioner cannot be considered arbitrary and capricious or
an
abuse of discretion. For these same reasons, petitioner's contention that the Borough President's
'
"silver Bridge Drive" and "Willow Reach Lane," were both too lengthy and not
distinctive enough.
In support of its contention, petitioner references an unuamed former borough president of Staten Island.
\20. As the unnamed former borough president has not submitted an affidavit in this case, the
Court should not give credence to this hearsay statement. In any event, the unnamed former borough
president's recollection is countered by the Affidavit of Robert E. Englert. Mr. Englert states that he has
worked at the Office of the Staten Island Borough President for nearly twelve years. See Englert
Affidavit at !J l. During that time, he has served two borough presidents, both of whom were his direct
supervisor. See id. at\2. He further states that the practices and procedures goveming the issuance of
lrouse numbers and street names were "largely unchanged" during his time at the Office of the Staten
Island Borough President. See id. at fl 3.
See id. af
18.
Once the preferred names were rejected, the Office of the Staten Island
to
conform to its guidelines. Most importantly, the names satisfy the Topographical Bureau's
concern for distinctiveness. As such, there is little danger that motorists, first responders, or
emergency service dispatchers
ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York
Attorney for Respondent James Oddo in his Official
Capacity
100 Church Street, 5th Floor
New York, New York 10007
(212) 3s6-21e9
By:
A
NICHOLAS
Assistant Corporation Counsel
EXHIBIT A
gI
7109
e
t
December 10,2015
(.)
u.
Robert
UJ
tl
(J
ll
If you
rl tresl irl
tt
(,*
Attachments:
cc:
Bruno Savo
FES
g
FI
r..{
r-l
c-t
EI
1. PearlVlew Lane
2, Slver Bridge Drive
3. Tlmber Lane
4. lamb Run
5. Lazy Blrd Lane
l4l
=
L'
trl
lJ
EXHIBIT B
RtciMolo
TERRC
JAHS 3, OoDO
SONOUGfl PRESIENT
7
8.E
6.
200
WWW.5lATE
S LANDU SA. CO M
15 December 2015
Re:
President's Topographlcal Bureau (the "Bureau") issue new street names for the proposed development at the
referenced location,
As you are aware/ on or about November 24, 20t5, the Bureau issued house numbers and street names on the
development site plan, The Bureau does not have any admlnlstratlve procedures ln place for an applicant to
challenge or seek reconslderation of the selected house numbers and street names,
As such, this Bureau wlll not conslder your December 10, 2015 request
prevlously issued,
Sincerely,
g
Robeft E. Englert, AIA
REE:brz
gtsc
ROBERT E, ENGLERT,
AIA I DIRECTOR
Index
No. 80154/2015
Petitioner,
-against-
of Staten Islan{
Respondent.
ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
Attornyfor RespondentJames Oddo in his
fficialCapac
I
00 Church Street