mount builder against borough president james oddo
DESCRIPTION
Developers of Mount Manresa, the Savo Brothers, took Borough President James Oddo in court over the names he chose for the development's streets.TRANSCRIPT
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOLINTY OF RICHMOND
------xIn the Matter of a Proceeding under Article 78 of the
CPLR for a Writ of Mandamus,
MOLTNT BUILDERS LLC,
Petitioner,
-agarnst-
JAMES ODDO, in his Offrcial Capacity as BoroughPresident of Staten Island,
Respondent.
AFFIRMATION INOPPOSITION TOPETITIONER'SORDER TO SHOWCAUSE
Index No. 80154/15
X
NICHOLAS R. CIAPPETTA, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the
Courts of the State of New York, afÍirms 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. I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the OfIice oÍ Zachary W. Carter,
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, attorney for the Respondent James Oddo in his
offîcial 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
with agents, officers and employees of the City of New York.
2. I submit this affirmation in opposition to the motion, brought on by Order
to Show Cause by petitioner Mount Builders LLC seeking an order "enforcing the Decision and
Order of this Court, dated November 9, 2015 (the "November 9 Order"), and directing
Respondent James Oddo in his official capacity as Borough President of Staten Island to comply
with the November 9 Order....')
3. Petitioner's motion is lacking in merit as Staten Island Borough President
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 in a new Article 78 proceeding. In any event, as discussed herein and in the
accompanying Affidavit of Robert E. Englert, R.A. ("Englert Affidavit"), those actions were
entirely rational and reasonable.
Procedural and Factual Historv
4. Petitioner brought the instant Article 78 proceeding by Notice of Verified
Petition and Verified Petition to compel the issuance 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
relief was sought.
5. After this Office submitted an affrrmation of no opposition to the Petition
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. The November 9,2015 Order granted the petition and stated 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.
2
7 . Following the issuance of the November 9,2A15 Order, the Topographical
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 at flfl 15 and20-21.
8. On or about December 10,2015, petitioner, through its architect, returned
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, 2015, petitioner filed the instant motion to
enforce the November 9, 2015 Order.
10. On or about December 15, 2015, Robert E. Englert, on behalf of the
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'sOrder
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. Petitioner alleges that it is aggrieved by the issuance of street names that
were not on its preferred list. This case, however, has never been about street names. Rather, as
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
3
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
Englert Affidavit af \21. Petitioner does not contend otherwise.
13. Nothing in the Court's Order addressed the issuance of street names or in
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 replacementnames were well within the discretion afforded the Borough President.
14. Even if this Court decides to conduct a review of the Borough President's
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 fit the guidelines established by the Topographical Bureau.
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 in the Englert Affrdavit, the Borough's
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.
Englert, there have been situations in which all prefened names were rejected and the
4
Topographical Bureau selected "names that were not among those proposed by the developer."
Id. at fl 13.
17.4 number of considerations guide the Topographical Bureau's selection
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 9. If
names are too similar, there is a risk that emergency personnel may respond to the wrong
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 fit on a street sign. See id. at 18.2 The remaining two
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
adhçred 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
actions are "inconsistent with the custom and practices of the office that he holds" (Leland
,A,ffirmation at fl 19) is simply wrong.3
' Some names, such as "silver Bridge Drive" and "Willow Reach Lane," were both too lengthy and notdistinctive enough.
3 In support of its contention, petitioner references an unuamed former borough president of Staten Island.See id. af \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 boroughpresident'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 EnglertAffidavit at !J l. During that time, he has served two borough presidents, both of whom were his directsupervisor. See id. at\2. He further states that the practices and procedures goveming the issuance oflrouse numbers and street names were "largely unchanged" during his time at the Office of the Staten
Island Borough President. See id. at fl 3.
18. Once the preferred names were rejected, the Office of the Staten Island
Borough President appropriately exercised its discretion to choose alternative names that
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 will confuse these new street names with existing ones.
WHEREFORE, for all the above-stated reasons, it is respectfully requested that
this Court issue an order denying the instant Order to Show Cause, together with such other and
further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, New YorkDecember 17,2015
ZACHARY W. CARTERCorporation Counsel of the
City of New YorkAttorney for Respondent James Oddo in his OfficialCapacity100 Church Street, 5th FloorNew York, New York 10007(212) 3s6-21e9
By: NICHOLAS AAssistant Corporation Counsel
6
EXHIBIT A
çgI lvonico nssoticltøs n.. crrchitøcturol oncl ønglnøørlng p.c.
çl ää;iïiÏ1;x-- ;i:ï iiiiil,iJ',r 4
7109
December 10,2015
Robert Ii. Englert, R.A.Director of Land-Use, Planning & InfrastructureOffi.ce of the Staten Islancl Borough President10 Richmond TerraoeStaten lsland, New York 10301
e¡Èt
(.)u.¡Ê¡ú¡UJ
t¡l(Jl¿lÉ,
Re 239 Fingerboard Road, S.I.tllock 3019, Present Lot 120180 T'entative l,ots
Dear Mr. Englert:
Our office is retuming to your offîce the site plan with the marked up house nnmbers and
street names issued by your office. 'I'he list of street names that were given are notacccptable to our client and are herein requesting new street names be issued. Therefore, I
am sending you the original list of names that were requested. (attached is list) for thisdevelopment
If you rl tresl irl do not hesitate to contact my office.
S Õ tl þ¡
Peter J. Calvanico, P.E.
Attachments:
cc: Bruno Savo
(,
FES
dlÀ¡t¿t
*
SUGGESTED STRËET NAMES FORBLOCK 3019, LOT 120
gFIr..{r-lc-tEIc¡l4l
=l¡JL'trlÊ,
1. PearlVlew Lane
2, Sílver Bridge Drive3. Tlmber Lane
4. lamb Run
5. Lazy Blrd Lane
6. Amber Heights Drive7. Rabblt Rldge Road
8. Wlllow Reach Lane
9. Turtle Drlve
EXHIBIT B
OËF¡CT ÛF THË 8ONûUGH PffËSIDINT
t 0 Rtc¡iMol¡o TERRÅCÊ
sïÀTgr¡ tsLAN0, NY 10¡01
JAHËS 3, OoDO
SONOUGfl PRESIöENT
7 1 8.E 1 6. å200
WWW.5lATE N ¡S LANDU SA. CO M
15 December 2015
Peter J, Calvanico, P,E,Calvanlco Associates Architectural and Engineering P.C.
2535 Victory BoulevardStaten Island, NY 10314
Block 3019, Lot 120Staten Island, NY
Dear Mr. Calvanico:
I write in response to your letter dated December 10, 2015, which requests that the Staten Island Borough
President's Topographlcal Bureau (the "Bureau") issue new street names for the proposed development at thereferenced location,
As you are aware/ on or about November 24, 20t5, the Bureau issued house numbers and street names on thedevelopment site plan, The Bureau does not have any admlnlstratlve procedures ln place for an applicant tochallenge or seek reconslderation of the selected house numbers and street names,
As such, this Bureau wlll not conslder your December 10, 2015 request to change the street names that wereprevlously issued,
Sincerely,
Re:
gRobeft E. Englert, AIA
REE:brz
ROBERT E, ENGLERT, AIA I DIRECTOR
DIVISION OF LAND USE, PLANNING & INFRASTRUCTURE
BOROUGH HAIL I ROoM G-12 I STATEN ISLAND, NY X030X
P: 718-816-2112 | F: 718-816-2060 I WWW,STATENISLANDUSA.cOM
gtsc
Index No. 80154/2015
ZACHARY W. CARTERCorporation Counsel of the City of New York
Attornøyfor RespondentJames Oddo in his
fficialCapacþI 00 Church StreetNew Yorlç N.Y. 10007
OfCounsel: Nicholas R CiappettaTel: (212)356-2215NYCLIS No. 2015-044044
AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO ORDER TOSHOWCAUSE
In the Matter of a Proceeding under Article 78 of the CPLRfor a Writ of Mandamus,
MOLTNT BUILDERS LLC,
Petitioner,
-against-
JAMES ODDO, in his Offrcial Capacþ as Borough Presidentof Staten Islan{
Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF RICHMOND