Village of Wesley Hills v Planning Bd. of the Town of Ramapo (2011 NY Slip Op 51345(U))

Village of Wesley Hills v Planning Bd. of the Town of Ramapo

2011 NY Slip Op 51345(U) [32 Misc 3d 1216(A)]

Decided on July 13, 2011

Supreme Court, Rockland County

Jamieson, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Respondent/defendant Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. ("Mosdos") brings this motion pursuant to CPLR §§ 510 and 511 seeking to change the venue of this case from Westchester County to Rockland County. Inexplicably, Mosdos fails to mention in its papers that this case has been assigned, by order of the Administrative Judge, to the specially-created Environmental Claims Part of the Ninth Judicial District (the "ECP"). Pursuant to the rules for the ECP, all cases meeting the listed criteria in any county in the Ninth Judicial District may be brought in the ECP.

Prior to assigning the case to the ECP, Justice Scheinkman received multiple letters from Mosdos (and one from the Town of Ramapo) arguing that this case should not be assigned to the ECP, but should be handled in Rockland County. (Indeed, Mosdos made the same arguments before Justice Scheinkman that it makes in this motion.) Nonetheless, Justice Scheinkman determined that this case should be handled in the ECP. The Court notes that the rules for the ECP state that "The determination of the Administrative Judge . . . with respect to the granting or denial of admission to the ECP is final and subject to no further review or appeal." (Emphasis added).

Without determining whether the underlined language precludes a party from even bringing a motion for a change of venue when a case has been selected for the ECP, the Court examines the merits of Mosdos' motion. Mosdos claims that venue should not be in Westchester County (where the Village had filed the case, prior to it being assigned to the ECP) because the action seeks (in part) declaratory relief, and actions for declaratory relief can only be brought in the county in which the municipality in question is located. None of the cases Mosdos cites supports this position. In fact, one of the cases Mosdos cites stands for the exact opposite. See Brown v. Wing, 170 Misc 2d 554, 649 N.Y.S.2d 988 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Co. 1996) ("a proceeding against a body or officer may be brought anywhere within the judicial district where the acts complained of took place (CPLR 506[b]);" "Once the action is converted into a declaratory judgment proceeding [from an Article 78], the petitioners should [*2]not lose the benefit of CPLR 506(b) and their choice of venue, which was proper at the commencement of the action.").

Given the history of this dispute, and the very closely-related action that was handled by the ECP (Village of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo, Index No. 16876/2004), the Court finds that it is entirely appropriate for this case to remain in the ECP. The Court will not countenance any hint of forum shopping, which is exactly what this motion appears to be. The motion is thus denied.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated:New City, New York