Hits: 0

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By Dan Seidel. October 27, 2022:

(Editor’s Note:) The Appellate Court 2nd Department in Brooklyn has upheld the legal binding of the 1925 covenant attached to the Ridgeway Country Club property in a decision issued Tuesday

Dan Seidel, in the statement below, the attorney who handled the Action 1 of the Appeal, which he and John Sheehan filed on the involving environmental issues on the property explains the impact of the decision to WPCNR this morning in this analysis:

“Yesterday, the Appellate Division, 2nd Dept., published its decision in the “2nd part” of the Appeals filed against Judge Lefkowitz’s decision to allow FASNY to build its school on the old Ridgeway Country Club property.

There were 2 appeals: one by Gedney Association, John Sheehan and me. Dan Seidel, on SEQRA/Environmental/Common Council issues and a second (called “Action #2) contesting the school placement on the property due to a “deed restriction” in Gedney Farms deeds concerning “institutional use”.

When the Ridgeway property was sold in its entirety to Farrell Builders, without contingencies, the property zoned 3/4 acre single family use, as of right, Gedney Assoc, Sheehan and Seidel made a prompt decision to withdraw their appeal as their issues were now moot – it would be a waste of the Court’s time to read all the papers and hear the matter if the matter was moot.

If Action #1 was NOT withdrawn and the Court was made to read papers on moot issues, there was a very good chance Gedney, Sheehan and Seidel COULD be sanctioned and have to pay costs (statutory and printing) to FASNY.

The Action #2 Appeal was not withdrawn, was prosecuted and the decision published yesterday was issued on their arguments, the Appellate Court deciding that Judge Lefkowitz made the correct decision/conclusion, but should have afforded those plaintiffs in Action #2 a chance to prosecute a “declaratory judgment” on the definition of “institution” – again the Appellate Court deciding that a school could be considered legit under a vague and undefined deed restriction.

The Appellate Court decided against the plaintiffs in Action #2, Action #1 having already been withdrawn with no costs to be awarded to any party, and DID award costs AGAINST the plaintiffs in Action #2 (the deed restriction appeal) to be paid to the defendant FASNY. The Appellate Court “sent the case back to Supreme Court” for the assessment and awarding of costs to FASNY.

The costs of the Appellate printing could be in the tens of thousands of dollars – receipts for those costs must be produced to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Judgments Section.

The plaintiffs in Action #2 can appeal that award of costs, but the same Appellate judges will be assigned THAT appeal (if filed) and may render a harsher decision on THAT appeal against those plaintiffs, IF an appeal is undertaken.

Bottom line is that White Plains won, kept the property development as “low impact environmentally sensitive grounds” and will get yearly property and school taxes from the McMansions to be built. The action against Judge Lefkowitz’s decision, I am assuming, is finally over.

This is my take on the decision.

The decision may be read at this link: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/AD2/Handdowns/2022/Decisions/D69688.pdf