By Beth Wallach
The decision, handed down April 18, dismissed the first case against the planning board, concerning Chase Partners' claim that because the village did not act in a timely manner, by default, they should be issued a permit enabling them to proceed with their original plan of building 349 units on the site of the former Darby Drug headquarters.
"This was a very favorable decision to the village, so the village is pleased," said Gary Fishberg, the planning board's attorney and a member of the Garden City-based law firm Cullen and Dykman. Fishberg said that the court, in effect, rejected Chase's claim that they had a vested interest in the property, and therefore should be able to go ahead with their building plans. In his decision, Alpert wrote that in New York, "a vested right can be acquired when a landowner effects significant changes and improvements and incurs substantial expenses to further development," but in the case of Chase Partners, construction had not been started because they were still awaiting completion of an environmental studies program.
Under the ruling, Chase Partners has 30 days to appeal, but Fishberg had no knowledge of their plans. "This was a technical ruling," said Michael Faltischek, an attorney with the Uniondale-based law firm Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., and lead counsel for Chase Partners. He said that in November 2004, there was an amendment to the village code which removed the default provision that his client was relying on. Said Faltischek, "The village's change in the applicable law undermined the legal theories that supported the first case."
Two other suits are still pending before the courts-a case brought against the planning board over site plan review and another regarding the SEQRA, or environmental findings.
Seeing this more as a blip in a lengthy process rather than a convincing victory for the planning board, Faltischek said that his client is considering appeal but a decision had not yet been reached. "The real issue is still pending," said Faltischek, "and that deals with the validity of the planning board's findings and the ultimate decision they rendered [allowing] us to build [only] 230 units."
"We have no expectations one way or the other," said Tom Wassel, a fellow attorney at Fishberg's law firm. "It's over and done with as far as the village planning board is concerned. It's up to Chase to come to the planning board with a 230-unit site plan."
Comments? RVCeditor or (516) 569-4000 ext. 285.
