Shinnecock Neighbors v Town of Southampton
Annotate this CaseDecided on August 30, 2016
Supreme Court, Suffolk County
Shinnecock Neighbors, Rita Knox, Antonina Garofalo a/k/a Anna Marie Garofalo, Hope Sandrow and Mary Elizabeth Woodburn, property owners, taxpayers, residents and individual members of Shinnecock Neighbors, Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
against
Town of Southampton, Town Board of the Town of Southampton, Planning Board of the Town of Southampton, R Squared Development LLC, R Squared INV HB LLC, Canal Properties LLC, and The Board of Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonality of the Town of Southampton, Respondents/Defendants.
08276/2015
Attorney for Respondents/Defendants
R Squared Development LLC,
R Squared INV HB LLC, Canal Properties LL" target="_blank">Matter of East End Resources v Town of Southold Planning Bd., 81 AD3d 947, 917 NYS2d 315 [2011]; Matter of Long Is. Contractors' Assn. v Town of Riverhead, 17 AD3d 590, 793 NYS2d 494 [2005]; Matter of Massiello v Town Bd. of Town of Lake George, 257 AD2d 962, 684 NYS2d 330 [1999]). If the motion is denied, "the court shall permit the respondent to answer" (CPLR 7804 [f]; see also Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 480 NYS2d 190 [1984]).
On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss a complaint for lack of standing, "the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff's lack of standing, rather than on the plaintiff to affirmatively establish its standing in order for the motion to be denied [and] the motion will be defeated if the plaintiff's submissions raise a question of fact as to its standing" (Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Vitellas, 131 AD3d 52, 59-60, 13 NYS3d 163, 170 [2015]).
"Standing is a threshold determination, resting in part on policy considerations, that a person should be allowed access to the courts to adjudicate the merits of a particular dispute that satisfies the other justiciability criteria" (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 769, 570 NYS2d 778, 782 [1991]). In land use matters, a party challenging governmental action has standing if it shows that it would suffer direct harm (i.e., injury-in-fact) that is in some way different from that of the public at large and, further, that the claimed harm is within the zone of interests protected by the statute or statutes alleged to have been violated (id.). As to the requirement of injury-in-fact, an allegation of close proximity alone may give rise to an [*3]inference of damage or injury that enables a nearby property owner to challenge a land use decision without proof of actual injury (Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d 406, 515 NYS2d 418 [1987]). "The harm that is alleged must be specific to the individuals who allege it, and must be different in kind or degree from the public at large, but it need not be unique" (Matter of Sierra Club v Village of Painted Post, 26 NY3d 301, 311, 22 NYS3d 388, 392 [2015] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). "Standing should be liberally construed so that land use disputes are settled on their own merits rather than by preclusive, restrictive standing rules" (Matter of Barrett v Dutchess County Legislature, 38 AD3d 651, 653, 831 NYS2d 540, 543 [2007]).
For an organization to have standing, one or more of its members must have standing to sue, it must demonstrate that the interests it asserts are germane to its purpose, and it must be evident that neither the asserted claim nor the appropriate relief requires the participation of the individual members (Matter of Dental Soc'y of State of NY v Carey, 61 NY2d 330, 474 NYS2d 262 [1984]).
Here, accepting as true the facts as stated in the combined petition and complaint and in the petitioners' supporting affidavits (see Matter of Schlemme v Planning Bd. of City of Poughkeepsie, 118 AD3d 893, 988 NYS2d 640 [2014]; Matter of Green Harbour Homeowners' Assn. v Town of Lake George Planning Bd., 1 AD3d 744, 766 NYS2d 739 [2003]), the court finds the claims of Rita Knox, Antonina Garofalo, and Mary Elizabeth Woodburn sufficient to withstand dismissal. As it is alleged that each of them resides in close proximity to the proposed development, there arises a presumption that each will be adversely affected in a manner different from the public at large (see Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, supra). Additionally, their allegations that they will suffer increased traffic congestion and delays on already burdened roads, resulting in increased difficulty entering and exiting their neighborhood as well as increased noise and air pollution, and a degradation of the community resulting from the new wastewater treatment plant, together with the claimed lack of harmony with the Town's comprehensive plan, are all concerns with the zone of interests protected by both the Town's zoning laws and SEQRA (see Matter of McGrath v Town Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush, 254 AD2d 614, 678 NYS2d 834 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 803, 688 NYS2d 493 [1999]).
As to Hope Sandrow, the court is constrained to employ a different analysis but reaches the same conclusion. As it is alleged that she resides approximately one mile from the canal, she cannot avail herself of the presumption of injury-in-fact; rather, it must appear that she will suffer a direct injury which is in some way different from that of the public at large (see Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, supra). Based on her supporting affidavit, and upon review of the combined petition and complaint, it appears that, as a professional artist and art activist, she is an advocate for the environment in general and for the preservation of the Shinnecock Canal in particular, and uses and visits the canal as part of her life's work; that protection of the environment is a predominant theme of her work; that the Shinnecock Canal has served as the subject of her work; that much of her work since the mid-1980s has referenced art history and [*4]reflected her concerns for preserving the environment on the East End; and that through her art and otherwise, she works to educate the public about why this area is so environmentally and aesthetically important and why the proposed development will destroy its natural and historic beauty. Since it appears from those allegations that her use and enjoyment of the area is more intense than that of the general public and, therefore, that she may be directly harmed in a way different in kind and degree from others, the court finds them sufficient to withstand dismissal (see Matter of Save the Pine Bush v Common Council of City of Albany, 13 NY3d 297, 890 NYS2d 405 [2009]). Like claims of specific environmental injury, injury to a petitioner's aesthetic and environmental well-being, activities, pastimes or desire to use and observe natural resources may also be found to state cognizable interests for purposes of standing (id.).
The court finds the claims of Shinnecock Neighbors likewise sufficient, given its stated purpose and that each of the individual petitioners is a member (see Matter of Defreestville Area Neighborhood Assn. v Planning Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush, 16 AD3d 715, 790 NYS2d 737 [2005]).
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
The court hereby directs that R Squared Development LLC, R Squared INV HB LLC, and Canal Properties LLC shall serve their answer to the combined petition and complaint within twenty (20) days after service upon them of a copy of this order with notice of its entry, after which time any party may, pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f), re-notice for hearing those portions of this proceeding (namely, the third and fourth causes of action) which are for article 78 relief (see Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193, 518 NYS2d 943 [1987]; P & N Tiffany Props. v Village of Tuckahoe, 33 AD3d 61, 817 NYS2d 345 [2006], appeals dismissed 8 NY3d 943, 834 NYS2d 720 [2007]; cf. Matter of 24 Franklin Ave. R.E. Corp. v Heaship, 74 AD3d 980, 901 NYS2d 863 [2010]).
Dated: August 30, 2016
HON. WILLIAM B. REBOLINI, J.S.C.
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.
