ORDERED, that the application of Plaintiffs' is hereby granted to the extent set forth herein below; the application of Proposed Intervenors is hereby denied in all respects; and the application for Proposed Amici Curiae Brief is hereby denied in all respects.

Plaintiffs move this Court (001) for an Order restraining, enjoining and prohibiting Defendants [*2]and/or their agents, or anyone acting on their behalf, or with their authority, and pending the trial of this action, from:

a.Using all or any portion of certain park property located at 61 Aldrich Land and 300 North Sea Road, Southampton, New York, and bearing SCTMNo. 904-4-2-29 and 34 (the Park) for non-park purposes and non-recreational purposes, and in a manner that is contrary to or inconsistent with the specific uses and purposes prescribed by the Town of Southampton Code § 140-6 and approved by the general electorate of the Town of Southampton when it approved a referenda establishing a community preservation fund program, pursuant to Town Law § 64-e;

b.Taking any action that allows , promotes, facilitates or sanctions any managerial or administrative plan or policy, including actions to implement a plan or policy that allows, promotes, facilitates or sanctions the use of all or any part of the Park for non-park and non-recreational purposes, including its use as a place where persons may gather, loiter or stand for purposes of being hired on a permanent or temporary basis;

c.Creating, erecting, installing or enforcing a no-person buffer zone area in, on or adjacent to the Park;

d.Erecting any kind of barrier, fence or wall intended to prohibit, exclude or restrict the public's right to use all or any portion of the Park for park and recreational purposes, including those purposes and uses permitted by Town Law § 64-c and Southampton Town Code § 140-6;

e.Preventing the public, including families with children, from using and enjoying all or any portion of the Park for park and recreational purposes;

f.Taking any action that affects the Park or its use and enjoyment for park and recreational purposes without strict compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA)(NY Env Con Law §§ 8-0101 et seq);

g.Requiring the Defendants to administer, manage and enforce the Park's use for park and recreational purposes only.

Proposed Intervenors move this Court (002) for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 1012, allowing intervention as of right, or in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 1013, allowing intervention by permission, to proposed Intervenors DOE #1, DOE #2, FINNERTY, GREINKE and the COALITION.

Proponents of Amici Curiae move this Court (003) for an Order allowing the brief of the amici curiae to be filed in this matter.

After a diligent and thorough review of all of the submissions herein, this Court reaches the inescapable conclusion that this matter is not about constitutional rights, such as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor about immigration, legal or otherwise. Therefore, this Court has determined that both the Motion to Intervene and the Motion for consideration of the Amici Curiae brief must be denied.

Distilled to its very essence, this action concerns alienation of parkland without legislative authority. Even in its broadest view, it doesn't even reach a violation of SEQRA, let alone constitutional or human rights issues, because without the underlying legislative authority to use parkland for non-park and/or non-recreational purposes, in derogation of its legislatively enabled, [*3]narrowly defined special status, there can be NO manner of compliance with environmental, constitutional or immigration laws. Expanded to the fullest scope of issues to properly be reviewed herein, it is best stated by the following statement offered by the Southampton Town Attorney in his Affirmation in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, "...the Villages proposed use of the parkland in question as an outdoor hiring site is violative of § 140-6 of the Southampton Town Code; is violative of § 64-e of the Town Law; is an unlawful alienation of parklands; is a breach of the contract governing the use of the Park; is an unlawful impairment of the Town's rights as co-owner of the Park...". This Court concurs.

Adopted in 1998, Town Law § 64-e is entitled "Peconic Bay region community preservation funds", which explicitly includes the Town of Southampton in its definition of "Peconic Bay region". As further adeptly pointed out by the Town Attorney, subsection 9 thereof states that ""Lands acquired pursuant to this section shall be administered and managed in a manner which: (a) allows public use and enjoyment in a manner compatible with the natural, scenic, historic and open space character of such lands; (b) preserves the native biological diversity of such lands; (c) with regard to open space, limits improvements to enhancing access for passive use of such lands such as nature trails, boardwalks, bicycle paths, and peripheral parking areas provided that such improvements do not degrade the ecological value of the land or threaten essential wildlife habitat; and (d) preserves cultural property consistent with the accepted standards for historic preservation..."; and subsection 10 thereof states that "Rights or interest in real property acquired with monies from such fund shall not be sold, leased, exchanged, donated, or otherwise disposed of or used for other than the purposes permitted by this section without the express authority of an act of the legislature, which shall provide for the substitution of other lands of equal environmental value and fair market value and reasonably equivalent usefulness and location to those to be discontinued, sold or disposed of, and such other requirements as shall be approved by the legislature.". The intention of the state legislation herein is very clear, and the commercial nature of a hiring site is also clearly inconsistent and incompatible with the natural, scenic, historic and open space character requirements for lands acquired, administered and managed under this section of Town Law. What is also very clear is that the Village did not obtain the prior approval of the New York State Legislature for the intended activities in this Park addressed in this action, and therefore the Village's actions and proposed actions were violative of Town Law § 64-e.

As adeptly pointed out by Counsel for Plaintiffs, in November, 1998, the electorate of the Town of Southampton voted for a referendum establishing Southampton Community Preservation Fund Program, as set forth in Southampton Town Code Chapter 140, pursuant to Town Law § 64-e, with the same language as set forth in said Town Law, and including further limitations and restrictions on the use and disposal of property so acquired. In 2001 the Town entered into a contract with the seller of the property at the heart of this action, and the Village, for the purchase of said property with Community Preservation Funds, said Contract of Sale specifically stating at Paragraph 7 of the Rider thereof that the Village shall utilize and maintain same as a park "...in a manner limited to park and recreational purposes...". The transfer was effectuated on August 16, 2001, wherein the Town contributed the approximately $1,600,000.00 purchase price from Community Preservation Fund program monies; the Village made no contribution of funds. Once again, the intention of the town legislation herein, as well as the Contract of Sale wherein [*4]the Village was a party, is very clear, and the commercial nature of a hiring site is also clearly inconsistent and incompatible with the natural, scenic, historic and open space character requirements for lands acquired, administered and managed under this chapter of the Town Code. And once again it is also very clear is that Village did not obtain the prior approval of either the New York State Legislature nor the co-owner Town of Southampton for the intended activities in this Park addressed in this action, and therefore the Village's actions and proposed actions were violative of Southampton Town Code Chapter 140 and the Contract of Sale.

The Southampton Town Attorney also correctly points out that, as the Town and Village acquired the Park as Tenants In Common, the Town has an equal right to use of the Park, and the right to have such use by their co-owner Village limited to those permitted in the above referenced State Law and Town Code, which rights of the Town would be prejudiced and compromised by the activities proposed by the Village (See: Jemzura v Jemzura, 36 NY2d 496 [1975]; Gabay v Bender, 34 AD3d 207 [1 Dept 2006]; Corsa v Biernacki, 2 AD3d 388 [2 Dept 2003]; Race v Meyer, 219 AD2d 67 [3 Dept 1996]; Henry v Green, 126 Misc 2d 360 [Westchester Co 1984]). Therefore the Village's actions and proposed actions were violative of their co-owner/co-tenant relationship with the Town of Southampton.

For all the reasons stated herein above and in the totality of the papers submitted herein, it is, therefore,

ORDERED, that the application of Plaintiffs(001) for an Order restraining, enjoining and prohibiting Defendants and/or their agents, or anyone acting on their behalf, or with their authority, and pending the trial of this action, is hereby decided as follows:

a.As to enjoining and prohibiting the use of all or any portion of certain park property located at 61 Aldrich Land and 300 North Sea Road, Southampton, New York, and bearing SCTM# 904-4-2-29 and 34 (the Park) for non-park purposes and non-recreational purposes, and in a manner that is contrary to or inconsistent with the specific uses and purposes prescribed by the Town of Southampton Code § 140-6 and approved by the general electorate of the Town of Southampton when it approved a referenda establishing a community preservation fund program, pursuant to Town Law § 64-e, same is hereby granted in all respects;

b.As to enjoining and prohibiting the taking of any action that allows , promotes, facilitates or sanctions any managerial or administrative plan or policy, including actions to implement a plan or policy that allows, promotes, facilitates or sanctions the use of all or any part of the Park for non-park and non-recreational purposes, including its use as a place where persons may gather, loiter or stand for purposes of being hired on a permanent or temporary basis, same is hereby granted in all respects;

c.As to enjoining and prohibiting the creating, erecting, installing or enforcing a no-person buffer zone area in, on or adjacent to the Park, same is hereby denied in all respects, as same would be an unlawful interference with the governmental authority of the municipality to address traffic and safety issues that exceed the limited review in this action of activities proposed on park property, and Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a direct and controlling relationship between this alleged buffer zone and the proposed activities within the Park;

d.As to enjoining and prohibiting the erecting any kind of barrier, fence or wall intended to prohibit, exclude or restrict the public's right to use all or any portion of the Park for park and [*5]recreational purposes, including those purposes and uses permitted by Town Law § 64-c and Southampton Town Code § 140-6, same is hereby denied in all respects, as same would be an unlawful interference with the governmental authority of the municipality issues that exceed the limited review in this action of activities proposed on park property, and Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a direct and controlling relationship between this alleged improvements and the proposed activities within the Park;

e.As to enjoining and prohibiting the prevention of the public, including families with children, from using and enjoying all or any portion of the Park for park and recreational purposes, same is hereby granted;

f.As to enjoining and prohibiting the taking of any action that affects the Park or its use and enjoyment for park and recreational purposes without strict compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA)(NY Env Con Law §§ 8-0101 et seq), same is hereby granted;

g.As to enjoining and prohibiting the requiring of the Defendants to administer, manage and enforce the Park's use for park and recreational purposes only, same is hereby denied in all respects, as failing to make sense;

and it is further

ORDERED, that the application of Proposed Intervenors (002) for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 1012, allowing intervention as of right, or in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 1013, allowing intervention by permission, to proposed Intervenors DOE #1, DOE #2, FINNERTY, GREINKE and the COALITION, is hereby denied in all respects; and it is further

ORDERED, that the application of Proponents of Amici Curiae(003) for an Order allowing the brief of the amici curiae to be filed in this matter, is hereby denied in all respects.

Dated:Riverhead, New York

January 2, 2008

____________________________________

HON. JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER, J.S.C.

TO:

Borovina & Marullo PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334

Melville, New York 11747

Troutman Sanders LLP

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors

405 Lexington Avenue

New York, New York 10174

Richard E DePetris, Esq

Attorney for Defendant VILLAGE

21 South Main Street, PO Box 2297 [*6]

Southampton, New York 11969

Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors

99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor

New York, New York 10013-2815

Anthony B Tohill, Esq

Attorney for Defendant VILLAGE

12 First Street, PO Box 1330

Riverhead, New York 11901

Jason B Aldrich, Esq, Judicial Watch, Inc

Attorneys for Proposed Amici Curiae

501 School Street, SW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20024

Garrett W Swenson, Southampton Town Attorney

Attorney for Defendant TOWN

116 Hampton Road

Southampton, New York 11968