Town of Macedon v Village of Macedon
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Town of Macedon v Village of Macedon 2014 NY Slip Op 33178(U) December 10, 2014 Supreme Court, Wayne County Docket Number: 75192/2012 Judge: Daniel G. Barrett Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] At a terim of the upreme Court held in and for th · County of Wayne in the Vill~ge of Lyons, New York on the 22nd day of October, 2014. Present: Honorable Daniel G. Barrett Acting Supreme Court .Justice STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF WAYNE TOWN OF MACEDON, NEW YORK 32 West main Street Macedon, New York 14502, DE ISION Index No. 7 192 and 76106 Plaintiff ~or -vsVILLAGE OF MACEDON, NEW YORK 81 Main Street Macedon, New York 14502, De·fendant Since the commencement of this action in Decembe , 2012, multiple applications have been made by the parties. In that time rame, the Court has refrained from issuing a Decision on these application but, instead, encouraged the parties to meet in an effort to resolve the ending issues regarding the ownership and ope~ration of the sewage trea ment plant (STP). Regardless of the Decision rendered in these pen ing applications, the parties will still have to address issues with respect to ewage treatment for the residents of the Town and Village since t e original operation Agreement expired De!cember 31, 2012. Prese tly, a preliminary injunction granted January 24, 2013, by this Court is provi ing the framework by which the parties are operating the sewage reatment plant. -1- [* 2] The parties have met a number of times during the ourse of the litigation. The Court has been encouraged that a resoluti n could be reached. When meeting with counsel, regarding the statu of each of these meetings, the Court has bi~en advised that the parti . s were close to a resolution. Since the most recent meeting of the partiel was met with multiple new conditions, the Court's strategy to save the t xpayers of both municipalities substantial costs and legal fees was not su cessful. Therefore, the Court scheduled arguments for the outstan ing applications. This constitutes the Decision with respect to the outstandi g applications. These are the outstanding applications: 1. The Village's motion to re-argue (Index No. 75 92) dated May 16, 2013; 2. The Village's motion to dismiss (Index No. 76106) and for consolidation (Index Nos. 75192 and 7 106) dated August 30, 20·13; 3. The Town's motion for summary judgment dated January 6, 20'1 (Index Nos. 75192 and 76106); 4 4. The Village's motion to dismiss (Index No. 76 38, 76106 and 75192) dated February 4, 2014; 5. The Town's motion for judicial review of Villag~ sewer rents, enjoining the Village from using sewer rents to finance legal fees, $5,000.00 pilot project, CFA Grant and FC loan applications, filed February 3, 2014 and suppl mented October 2, 2014. The Village made the first application which was to -argue a portion of the Court's Decision dated February 14, 2013, which d nied the -2- [* 3] Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and A ended Complaint (Index No. 75192). Subsequently, the Village oved to dismiss the action commenced by the Town dated August 9, 2013 (Index No. 76106) as well as all other actions commenced by the Town. In the second application the Village moved to consolidate the a tions commenced by the Town. The position of the Village in each of these applicati ns is very direct and succinct. The Town has no legal right to pursue any ~ction regarding ownership of the sewage treatm(~nt plant (STP) because t e statute of limitations expired after the Agreement between the Town and Village regarding the STP was signed in January, 1989. (This agr ement has been referred to as the January 16, 1H89 Agreement and Janu ry 17, 1989. There is only one Agreement in .January of 1989 which pe ains to this action and will be referred to as ':he January, 1989 agree ent, except when quoting the Agreement.) Consequently, the Village ontends that the Town is not entitled to the preliminary injunction which wa granted in January, 2013. The Town opposes this application and r quests additional relief. Both parties agree that the actions should be cons lidated provided the Town's actions survive these motions to dismiss. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Prior to 1973, the Village constructed and was oper ting a STP located at 135 Main Street, Villa!~e of Macedon, which ac epted limited sewage from the Town. In March of 1973 the STP had a ~ow rate of 250,000 gallons per minute. In March 1973 the STP had Ln actual flow of between 30,000 gallons and 50,000 per day. The Village f.ould not operate the STP in an efficient and economical manner so it looke to the Town to jointly construct and upgrade expansion to bring it in com liance with DEC -3- [* 4] regulations. The Village was not in compliance with DEC egulations at the time and was subject to prospective fines from that agenc . The Village looked to expand it user base and it wa anticipated that the future development was in the Town outside the Villag and the Village did not want Town to look to other providers for sewer se ice. In furtherance of the plan for the Town to participate in the upgrade of the STP, its attorney requeste·d and received an opinio from the Town's bond counsel which indicated that for the Town legally bo row and expend money on the Village STP, the Village must agree to conv y an undivided real property interest in the STP to the Town in considerat on of which the Town would agree to finance the expansion of the facilitie . This letter from bond counsel was dated September 14, 1972, and s shared with the Village. The Village directed its attorney to obtain a legal opi ion from the Comptroller of the State of New York regarding the STP e· pansion. The Comptroller opined, in a letter dated January 26, 1973, th t such expenditure of the Town's funds could be accomplished p rsuant to Article 11 5-G of the New York General Municipal Law(§ 119-0) W ereby the Town would expand the Village sewage treatment plant and the Village would grant to the Town an interest in the sewer treatment facilit es." -4- [* 5] On March 14, 1973, in furtherance of this plan, the own and Village signed a letter of intent which stated that the intent of the arties that an invested property interest would be conveyed to the Town as a legal requisite of its expenditure of Town funds. The letter int nded and indicates that the expansion was in the best interest of th Village. An additional letter of intent was signed by the Tow and Village in March, 1985. The parties executed an Agreement dated January 6, 1989 which provided in part: "Section A(2): that recognizing the anticipated investment by the Town in the STP and to leg lly enable a Town to finance said expansion the Village agrees to execute to the Town docum ntation so as to recognize a vested interest in the pla t. Section A(3): that sa id vested interest to the T wn shall be proportional to the number of chargea le sewer units in each municipality which as of 1988 is 80o/o Village and 20% Town. Except a Town may contribute! more chargeable units t the Village, its vested interest will increase until such time as it reaches the 50% level at which time it will be capped so that tlhe Village and Town each have~ a 50°/o interest in the transmission of treatment facilities. Section 8(1 ): Village and Town jointly own [present tense] treatment facility as co-owners of the STP Section 8(2): provides the Village would oper e the plant during the term of the 1989 agreeme t. -5- [* 6] In these pending applications the Village argues tha the statute of limitation expires eighteen months after this agreement w s signed. That expiration date would be July 16, 1990. In furtherance of the 1989 agreement, by resolution ated February 14, 1991, the Town authorized the issuance of $1,666,00 .00 in bond anticipation notes to finance the project. Later plans and pecifications were drafted and bids let for the upgrade expansion of th existing treatment plan by the Town to increase the capacity from 50,000 gallons per day to 750,000 gallons per day and upgrade the sewe treatment plant On September 26, 1991 , the Town awarded contrac s to C.O. Falter Construction in the amount of $1,548, 111.00 and Mayer lectric in the amount of $21,000.00. The parties entered an Agreement on December 11 1991, labeled Supplemental Sewer Treatment Project Agreement betwe n the Town of Macedon and the Village of Macedon, which provided in art: "Whereas the respective governing Board$ of the Town and Village, after due consideration, are desirous of memorializing their underst ndings, expectations, and representations as to the imp~ementati n of the inter municipal agreement executed ,January 16, 1989 by the r · spective chief executive officers." At paragraph 3 of the 199'1 Agreement it provides, " othing in this supplemental agreement shall be deemed to change any f the rights and obligations set out in the January, 1991 intermunicipal ag eement". [This date of 1991 appears to be incorrect as first whereas clau e provides that the Town and Village did on January 16, 1989 enter into contract styled "intermunicipal agreement for se~wage treatment and tran missions lines"]. -6- [* 7] In the opposing papers to ·'his application the Villag argues that whatever interest the Town was entitled to in 1989 has be n eliminated effective July, 1990 by the operc1tion of the statute of limitations. This supplemental agreement was an affirmative act by the Viii ge to reinstate its obligations under the 1989 A~Jreement. The December 1991 Agre(~ment provides that the p oject would be financed in the following manner: $1,666,000.00 from serial bonds issued $ 81 ,000.00 from an existing Town se $ 50,000.00 from a State grant award $ 33,000.00 contributed from Village f y the Town; er capital fund; d to the Town; nds. This agreement provided $356,000.00 of the princip I on the bond issue would be paid based on sE~wer rents paid by both th Town and Village residents. Construction on the upgrade and expansion of the TP began in December, 1991. On January 2, 1992, the Town filed an pplication with the New York State Department of Audit and Control see ·ng authorization to exclude the $1,666,000.00 sewage indebtedness from he Town's debt limit, pursuant to Section 124.10 of the Local Finance La . By certificate dated March 16, 1992 the State Comptroller granted the awn's application for exclusion, by including in its findings ~nd d . terminations, that the sewage treatment plant "will be jointly owned by t e Town and Village of Macedon pursuant to the Municipal Operation A reement as authorized by Article 5G of the General Municipal Law." -7- [* 8] On June 21 , 1993, after the upgrade and expansion had been completed, the Town issued Ion~~ term general obligation onds in the amount of $1,605,000.00. In order to be in compliance with the law as specific lly stated in the 1989 Agreement at Section A(2)- recognizing the anticipa ed investment by the Town and the STP and to ~m.llY enable the Town to f nance said expansion, the Village agrees to execute to the Town doc mentation as to recognize a vested interest in the Town. In a letter dated July 15, 1B93 the Mayor of the Villa e referred to the STP as "Village/Town Sewer Plc1nt" and the "Joint Sewer reatment Plant". From the date of the bond issue until December 15, 012 the principal sum of $1,605,000.00 was repaid in yearly instalments on December 15th. Over the life of the bonds, the Village contributed to the Town the sum of $342,000.00 and interest of $190,000.00 for a tota of $532,476.00, in 40 semi-annual payments. Over the life of the bonds, the Town expended the s m of $830,000.00 plus interest of $236,626.00 for a total of $1, 85,728.00. The Town expended an additional sum of $433,000.00 with int rest of $236,626.00 for a total of $669,E>26.00. -8- [* 9] The Town taxpayers paid a total of $2,036,354.00 ( 669,626.00 and $1,285,728.00 in bond principal and interest, and $81,000 00 capital reserve) for the expansion of the sewer treatment plant in ddition to the Town's proportional share of $5~~2,476.00 (bond, principal and interest) for the plant upgrade. The Village paid a total of $333,000.00 plus its prop rtional share of the $532,476.00. In a letter dated August 10, 2012, the Town, throug its attorney, sent a letter to the Village to produce any further docume tation to complete the vested ownership interest to the Town and t negotiate a new operation agreement. The Villa~1e did not identify any furt er documents needed to complete or effectuatE~ the vested interest in th In a letter dated December 4, 2012, the ViUage, thro gh its counsel, to the Town indicated the Village! would only negotiate a c ntract to continue sewer service if the Town would withdraw its clai of a vested ownership interest and give to the Village a general relea e for such claims. In e-mails dated December 18, 2012 and December 19, 2012, the Village, through its counsel, stated that the absence of a ost 1989 agreement for payment by the Town to the Village, the Vil age would discontinue providing waste treatment to Town users after January 1, 2013. -9- [* 10] STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A cause of action for breach of contract accrues on . statute of limitations begins to run when the breach occurs or when he party to the agreement fails to perform an obligation. El Cruikshank o. Inc. v Bank of Montreal, 81 N.Y. 2d 399, 599 N.Y.S. 2d 501. CPLR Section 9802 provides that a breach of contra t action shall be commenced within eighteen months after the cause of act on accrued and provided further that the written verified claim shall be file with the Village Clerk within one year after the cause of action accrued. T e limitation begins to run when one party omits the performance of a ontractual obligation. Case law holds that at a motion to dismiss the Court is to accept the allegations of the complaint as true and all inferences whi h flow reasonably therefrom are resolvHd in favor of the pleader see EBC I Inc. v Goldman. Sachs and Co., 5 N.Y. 3d 11, 799 N.Y.S. 2d 17 ). The complaint alleges that legally the Town had to be vested ith an interest in the STP before the bonds were issued. The Village reape the benefits of the 1989 Agreement. The Village benefitted by the large xpenditure of Town funds and the Village operated the STP from the for ation of the 1989 Agreement until the present time. At no time did the Village object to the expenditures by the Town. The Village did not object o the issuance of the bonds knowing full well that the Town had to be ves ed with an interest in the STP at the time of issuance. -10- [* 11] The Village argues that the! statute of limitations exp red on or about July, 1990. However, per the A£1 reement dated Decembe 11, 1991, the Village, after due consideration, ratified the January, 1989 Agreement. It is noted that the actions of the Villc:1ge on December 11, 199 , took place after the Town authorized the issuance of $1, 666,000.00 n bond anticipation notes on February 14, 1991. "Our courts have long had the power, both at law an equity, to bar the assertion of the affirmative defense of the statute of Ii .itations where it 1 is the defendant's affirmative wrong doing ... which producTd a long delay" in bringing the suit. General Stencils, Inc., v Chiappa, 18 tJ .Y. 2d 125, 128, 272 N.Y.S. 2d 337, 334. A plaintiff seeking to apply the d~ctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude the defendant from using t e statute of limitations as a defense must es~ablish that subsequent a d specific actions by the defendant somehow kept the plaintiff from ringing timely suit. Putter v North Shore University Hosp., 7 N.Y. 3d 54 , 825 N.Y.S. 2d 435. The stimulus of use of this doctrine is conduct by on party inconsistent with a position later adopted by that party, wh ch is prejudicial to the rights of another who relied on the prior conduct to t eir detriment. Vignari v Continental Tennessee: Lines, Inc., 70 Misc. 2d 62, 333 N.Y.S. 2d 283. It is a situation where a defendant has deceived t e plaintiff or lulled Dailey v. Mazel Stores, Inc;., 309 A.O. 2d 661 , 766 .Y.S. 2d 178 the plaintiff into a false sense of security. In such cases, the octrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked to prevent the defend nt from reaping the benefits of their wrong doing. General Stencils, Inc.. s ora. In the case at bar the January 1989 Agreement at Section A(2) provid~d that the Village would execute to the Town a vested interest in the·l~TP. At Section B: 1 is an indication that both municipalities jointly owned t~e STP at the time of the Agreement in January, 1989. On December 1 , 1991, the Village takes the affirmative step ratifying the 1989 Agree ent. -11- [* 12] The actions taken by the Village in 2012 - denying n interest in the sewer treatment plant to the Town is inconsistent with the actions the Village took in January, 1989 and December of 1991. Cle rly, the Town relied on the prior conduct of the Village to their detriment in light of the fact the Town spent a significant amount of money to impr ve the STP. The actions of the Village present a question of fact as to hether or not equitable estoppel applies. CONTINUING WRONG Another theory which may have application to the c se at bar is a theory of "continuing wrong". "However, where a contract provides where continuing performance over a period of time, breach may begin the running of the statute a such that accrual occurs continuously." '-'A:.!.:...irc.:...:o:......:.+~-= Div. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 76 A.O. d 68, 430 N.Y.S. 2d 179. Because Defendant's obi gation to assure "code compliance" with respect tot e septic system was a continuing one (see Orville v NeJ ski. Inc.. 155A.D. 2d 799, 80·1, 547 N.Y.S. 2d 913, Iv. Cfismissed 75 N.Y. 2d 946, 555 N.Y.S. 2d 693, 554 N.E. 2d 1281 ), the claims for breach of that obligation are "nol referable exclusively to the day the original wrt ng was committed" (10Ei0 Tenants Cor . v La idus, 289 A.O. 2d 145, 14fi, 735 N.Y.S. 2d 47; cf.Sate of New York v CSRI Ltd. Partnership, 289 A. 2d 394, 395, 734 N.Y.S. 2d 626; Kearney v Atlantic Cement Co., 33 A.O. 2d 848, 849, 30 -12- [* 13] N.Y.S. 2d 45). lnstec:1d, "a cause of action ace e[d] anew every day" for each continuation of the rong (1050 Tenants Corp .._289 A.O. 2d at 146-147, 735 N.Y.S. 2d 47),and thus the statute of limitation Has not run on attempts to enforce defendant' obligation prospectively (see Orville, 155 A.O. at 801 , 547 N.Y.S. 2d 913; cf. 509 Sixth Ave. d ~orp. v 1 New York City Tr. Auth. , 15 N.Y. 2d 48, 52, 25 N.Y. S . 2d 89, 203 N.E. 2d 486; Meruk v Cit f New York, 223 N.Y. :271, 275-276, 119 N.E. 5 1; Galway v Metropolitc1n El. Ry. Co., 128 N.Y. 1 2, 143, 28 N.E. 479). To the extent that the ame ded complaint seeks injunctive or other prospective relief, such claims therefon~ are not time-barred (se generally Sova v Glasier, 192 A.O. 2d 1069, 1070, 596 .Y.S. 2d 228; Kearney, 33 A.O. 2d at 849, 306 N.Y. . 2d 45). Stalis v Sugar Creek Stores. Inc., 259 A.O. 2d 439, 940-941, 744 N.Y.S. 2d 586, 587- 588. The Village had an agreement with the Town to conyey an undivided interest in the STP but it also had an obligation to comply With the General Municipal Law. Bond counsel and the Comptroller opined and the Complaint alleges that in order to be a legal transaction th Village must transfer an undivided interest in the STP before the bond are issued. The language of Section A(2) of the '1989 Agreement appears o undertake this duty by utilizing the language "tci legally enable the Town o finance said expansion." The Village appeans to have violated its duty in January 1989 and December 1991 and continually through the present. There is a question of fact whether the continuing wrong theory appli s. -13- [* 14] VILLAGE'S MOTIONS TO DISMI S In the Town's action dated December 26, 2012, and modified by an Amended Complaint dated January 15, 2013, there is onl one cause of action pleaded which seeks an injunction preventing the illage from terminating sewer service to residents of the Town until s ch time as the parties can agree on an interim or long term contract. Th Motion to Dismiss this cause of action is denied. In the Town's action dated August 9, 2013, eight ca ses of action are pleaded. The first cause of action seeks a declaratory judgm nt holding that the Town has a present and continuing vested interest in he sewer treatment plant and transmission lines, compelling the Viii ge to execute and deliver additional documentation as deemed required to effectuate the intent of the parties, and imposing such conditions and su ervision as is necessary and proper to ensure the continued sewer trea ment to all current and future users of the system. The Motion as to his cause of action is denied. -14- [* 15] The second cause of action seeks relief under Artie! 15 of the RPAPL. The Motion is denied as to this cause of action. The third cause of action seeks contract reaffirmatio . The Motion to Dismiss this cause of action is denied. The fourth cause of action is seeking unjust enrich ent. The Motion to Dismiss this cause of action is denied. The fifth cause of action is seeking a constructive tr st impressed on the STP. The Motion is denied as to this cause of action. The sixth cause of action seeks a mandatory accou ting from the Village from 1991 to 2012. The Motion is denied as to thi cause of action. The seventh cause of action seeks a declaratory ju addressing the use of sewer rents by the Village. Motion o Dismiss is denied as to this cause of action. The eighth cause of action seeks the Village be co participate in alternate dispute rE~solution should the Cou find the matter herein subject to alternate dispute resolution under the A reement. The issue of the statute of limitations has to be resolved prior determining whether this matter would be referred to dispute resolutio . Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss this cause of action is denied at this ti e. -15- [* 16] PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION The Town's application dated January 6, 2014, requ sted that the Village's motion to be dismissed be treated as a motion for partial summary judgment and the Court grant the Town partial summary judgment on the issue of ownership of the STP. The Cou denies this an Order determining whether the Village had used and/o is using the sewer rents to finance the Village pilot project, CFA Grant Application, and re directing the Village to transfer from the Village's general 1und to the sewer rent fund $5,000.00 plus the costs incurred as a result of CFA Grant Application and EFC Loan Application. At this time the C urt is denying the application. The preliminary injunction granted by this Court on anuary 24, 2013 continues herein. This constitutes the Decision of the Court. Counsel for Town to prepare an Order based on thi Decision. Dated: December 10, 2014 Lyons, New York Dan el G. Barret Acting Supreme ZO: ld Ol 830 vl. -16-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
