SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ORANGE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS PART
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
VILLAGE OF SOUTH BLOOMING GROVE, et
al.,
NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION
Petitioners,

Hon. Francesca E.
Connolly

For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78

of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
- against VILLAGE OF KIRYAS JOEL BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, et al.

Ind. No. 2015-7410

Proceeding No. 1.

Respondents.
EMANUEL LEONOROVITZ, et al.
Additional Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
PRESERVE HUDSON VALLEY, et al.
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

Ind. No. 2015-8118

Proceeding No. 2

- against
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MONROE, et
al.
Respondents/Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
SIRS:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed affirmation of
Michael H. Donnelly, affirmed January 22, 2016, and upon the
affidavit of Harley E. Doles, III dated January 22, 2016, and

upon the exhibits annexed hereto, and upon all of the

proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned, the attorney
for respondent, Town of Monroe, will cross-move this Court at
the Courthouse, White Plains, New York on March 9, 2016 at 9:00
oclock in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as
counsel can be heard for judgment dismissing the petitions and
the complaint to CPLR 3212 and CPLR 3211(a)(7) upon the ground
that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, and for
such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

Dated:

January 22, 2016

Goshen, New York.

______________________
Michael H. Donnelly

DICKOVER, DONNELLY & DONOVAN,

LLP

Attorneys for respondent, Town of

Monroe
28 Bruen Place PO Box 610
Goshen, New York 10924
(845) 294-9447
TO: John J. Henry, Esq.
Michael G. Sterthous, Esq.
Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, NY 12260
Steven Barshov, Esq.
Sive, Paget & Riesel, PC
460 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Daniel M. Richmond, Esq.
81 Main Street, Suite 415
White Plains, New York 10601

Bryan Cave, LLP

1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10104
Keane & Beane, P.C.
445 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, NY
Meredith G. Lee-Clark, Esq.
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341

O:\MHD\Municipal\T-Monroe\KJ Annexation\164 Pleadings\T-Monroe Opposition.docx

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ORANGE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS PART
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
VILLAGE OF SOUTH BLOOMING GROVE, et
al.,
AFFIRMATION
Petitioners,
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78
of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
- against VILLAGE OF KIRYAS JOEL BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, et al.,

Ind. No. 2015-7410

Proceeding No. 1

Respondents.
EMANUEL LEONOROVITZ, et al.
Additional Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
PRESERVE HUDSON VALLEY, et al.
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

Ind. No. 2015-8118

Proceeding No. 2

- against
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MONROE, et
al.
Respondents/Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, an attorney admitted to practice in
the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms, under
penalty of perjury, that:
- 1 -

I am a member of the firm of Dickover, Donnelly & Donovan,

LLP, attorneys for respondent, Town of Monroe, in the above
captioned actions/proceedings and, as such, am familiar with the
facts and circumstances surrounding this case and with the prior
papers and proceedings had herein. This affirmation is submitted
in opposition to article 78 petitions before the court and in
support of the motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes
of action at las aw asserted in the citizen-challenger hybrid
action-proceeding. All statements of fact contained herein not
on personal information are upon information and belief, the
source of the information and ground for the belief being
discussions had with my client and an examination of the file
maintained by my office in this matter.
On or about December 27, 2013, Town of Monroe landowners
petitioned to annex 507 acres of land from the unincorporated
portion of the Town into the Village of Kiryas Joel (the
Village). Thereafter, on August 20, 2014, certain town
landowners separately petitioned to annex a 164-acre subset of
the same land into the Village. During the course of the General
Municipal Law Article 17 review, the Town Board and Village
Board both found the proposed 164-acre annexation to be in the
overall public interest, but disagreed as to whether the 507acre annexation is in the overall public interest. A special
proceeding is pending in the Appellate Division, Second
- 2 -

Department pursuant to General Municipal Law 12,

where a final

determination of overall public interest will be made with

respect to the 507-acre annexation petition.
Two separate Article 78 proceedings are now before the
court. In one proceeding, a group of municipal challengers seek
to set aside the joint finding of overall public interest issued
in the 164-acre annexation primarily upon the ground that the
SEQRA review of the annexations potential adverse environmental
impacts was flawed (the Municipal Petition). Because SEQRA
review covered both the 507-acre annexation petition and the
164-acre subset petition, the Municipal Petition also seeks to
reverse the Village Boards determination of overall public
interest as to the 507-acre annexation.
The challengers in the second proceeding (a group of
citizen challengers which includes several individuals and an
unincorporated association) seek the same relief, but add claims
at law in the nature of a declaratory judgment seeking to
reverse all of the municipal determinations made in both matters
on numerous grounds, including violation of the Establishment
Clause of the United States Constitution, violation of the Town
of Monroe Ethics Code, andas purported citizen-taxpayersunder
authority of Section 51 of the General Municipal Law] (the
Citizen Petition).
The Town of Monroe opposes all of the relief sought in the
- 3 -

Article 78 proceeding and moves for summary judgment dismissing

the claims at law asserted in the citizen petition.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the affidavit of
Harley E. Doles, III, the Town of Monroe Supervisor, and for the
reasons set forth herein (and in the accompanying memorandum of
law), it is respectfully requested that the article 78
proceedings and the causes of action at law be dismissed.
Dated:

January 22, 2016

Goshen, New York.
_______________________
MICHAEL H. DONNELLY

- 4 -