SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND VILLAGE OF CHESTNUT RIDGE, AFFIRMATION IN Plaintiff, SUPPORT ?against- Index No. CHESTNUT RIDGE VENTURE LLC, BAIS YAAKOV ELEMENTARY OF ROCKLAND COUNTY, RABBI NISSON PORTNOY, YESHIRA OHEL YAAKOV, RABBI MOSHE FRIEDMAN, and JOHN DOES One through Three Hundred Seventy-Five, JOHN DOES being a ?ctitious name used to represent individuals whose identities are presently unknown, Defendants. Plaintiff, by its attorney, Walter R. Sevastian, Esq., complaining of the defendants, alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, situated in Rockland County, New York. 2. That I am the Village Attorney for the Village of Chestnut Ridge, which represents the plaintiff in the above captioned matter. 3. This af?nnation is submitted in support of the accompanying Order to Show Cause by which the Village of Chestnut Ridge seeks to obtain a preliminary injunction to stop the use and/or occupancy of the premises located at 681Chestnut Ridge Road, Chestnut Ridge, New York, and designated on the Town of Ramapo Assessment Map as Section 63.05-1-8, hereina?er referred to as "the premises.? A summons and complaint seeking a permanent injunction in this matter are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. This af?rmation is based upon information and belief except as to those matter stated to be upon direct knowledge. The sources of information and grounds for belief consist of the ?les maintained by my of?ce, books and records maintained in the Chestnut Ridge Village Hall, and conversations had with Building Inspector, Fire Inspector, and Code Enforcement Of?cer for the Village of Chestnut Ridge. BACKGROUND 5. The premises consist of 115.74 acre parcel of land, improved with 19 structures, which formerly housed the Edwin Gould Academy, which was its own Public School District wholly contained on the premises (School District #14 in the Town of Ramapo). 6. The 19 structures on the single parcel of land supported a myriad of Uses associated with the Edwin Gould Academy?s separate Public School District, which Uses were active, as further detailed in the af?davit of the Chestnut Ridge Building Inspector, until School District 14 in the Town of Ramapo was dissolved by an Act of the New York State Legislature in Chapter 478 of the Laws of 2006. See Exhibit B. 7. In fact, the legislative history supporting Chapter 478 of the Laws of 2006 contains a statement that the Edwin Gould Academy discontinued all educational and facilities?related operations at the premises on August 31, 2005. See Exhibit B. 8. As noted in the a?idavit of the Chestnut Ridge Building Inspector, there was no activity or active uses at the premises between August 31, 2005 and the date that the defendant Chestnut Ridge Venture LLC took title to the premises in December of 2012. 9. The fact that the Edwin Gould Academy operated the premises as a Public School District, carrying out the State ?inctions, afforded them a degree of immunity from regulation by the Village of Chestnut Ridge under its zoning code, as all public school districts may not be excluded from any community and are not subject to enforcement of any provisions of local zoning ordinances against them. See Cornell University V. Bagnardi, 107 398, 401 (1985), order modi?ed, 68 583. 10. Your a?irmant has reviewed the ?les relative to the premises maintained in the Village of Chestnut Ridge Building Department, and it is clear that the New York State Department of Education regularly inspected, monitored, and issued operating permits to the Edwin Gould Academy for many of the wide range of school and school related Uses located at the premises prior to the school district being dissolved by the State in 2006. 11. As detailed in the af?davit of the Building Inspector, there is no approved Site Development Plan for the premises in the records maintained by the Village of Chestnut Ridge Building Department. Your a?irmant believes that this is due to the fact that the Public School Use at the premises was not regulated by the Village of Chestnut Ridge. 12. However, in 2003, the Edwin Gould Academy submitted an application to the Village of Chestnut Ridge Planning Board entitled ?Site Plan for Edwin Gould Academy?, wherein the project is described as a ?Site Plan review of existing educational/campus/resident treatment center and proposed lighting plan.? See Exhibit C. 13. The Planning Board application ?led by the Edwin Gould Academy acknowledges that its purpose is for the Village of Chestnut Ridge to review the residential treatment facilities at the premises, and that the residential treatment facility was a non?school related use, therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Village of Chestnut Ridge. 14. Indeed, in October of 2004 the Edwin Gould Academy ?led a Zoning Board application for a variance from the provisions of the Zoning Code which prohibit the expansion of a non?conforming use the residential treatment facility. See Exhibit D. 15. Upon information and belief, the Planning and Zoning Board applications were not completed since the Edwin Gould Academy ceased all operations in August of 2005. Thus, no Site Development Plan was approved at that time. 16. As noted in the Af?davit of the Building Inspector, there have been no applications for building permits, Certi?cates of Occupancy, or for Site Development Plan approval ?led by any of the defendants in this matter. 17. There is no argument that the School Use(s) established by the defendants in this case, by their very nature, serve the public welfare and morals and are entitled to special treatment to the extent that they are subject to municipal jurisdiction. If the school established by the defendants is in fact a religious school (the Village of Chestnut Ridge has no idea whether the defendant?s schools are religious schools since no application to permit the School Use has been ?led), even more deferential treatment under the law may be afforded to defendants. 18. Additionally, it is clear that the School Use established by the defendants is a Use permitted by Special Permit in the R40 Zoning District where the property is located. There is no doubt that the Special Permit for a School of religious or general instruction would be granted if in fact an application was made. 19. However, as detailed in the Af?davits of the Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Of?cer, and veri?ed in the letter sent to your af?ant by the defendant?s attorney, the defendants have established a School Use without seeking any approvals or permits whatsoever under the guise of utilizing non?existent Certi?cates of Occupancy as justi?cation for simply reestablishing long discontinued Uses without any municipal oversight. 20. Speci?cally, as witnessed and detailed by the Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Of?cer, the defendant Chestnut Ridge Venture LLC has established a Commercial (of?ce) Use at Building #17 at the premises without ?rst obtaining a Certi?cate of Occupancy for the Commercial Use from the Village of Chestnut Ridge as required under the Chestnut Ridge Zoning Code. 21. The last Certi?cate of Occupancy in place for Building #17 at the premises was for a ?Staif Residence? associated with the Edwin Gould Academy, and that Use has now been changed by the defendants without regard to applicable provisions of the Chestnut Ridge Zoning Code. 22. The change of Use to Building #17 alone triggers the Chestnut Ridge Zoning Code?s requirement for Site Plan Approval, and the issuance of a Certi?cate of Occupancy. Again, this is a single parcel of land, not 19 individual parcels of land simply because there are 19 separate structures on the premises. 23. Similarly, the defendant?s attorney states that existing Certi?cates of Occupancy permits ?dormitory? Uses at Buildings #14 and #15 at the premises, when, as detailed in the af?davit of the Building Inspector, the last Certi?cates of Occupancy in place for those buildings are for a ?Childcare Agency? in both buildings. 24. The Certi?cates of Occupancy in place for Buildings #14 and #15 are for a ?Childcare Agency?, and those Uses have now been changed to School Uses without regard to applicable provisions of the Chestnut Ridge Zoning Code. 25. Furthermore, as detailed in the Af?davit of the Building Inspector, his review of the records maintained by the Building Department for the Village of Chestnut Ridge reveals that the there is no record of a construction date or plans for the Building #9 at the premises in the ?les, and that he is unable to con?rm that there is a correct and appropriate Certi?cate of Occupancy for Building #9 in the Building Department ?les due to limited information in the property ?les. 26. The defendants, instead of clarifying this issue with the municipality, simply state that one of the many Certi?cates of Occupancy in the ?le for a ?School? is in fact the Certi?cate of Occupancy for Building and completed construction work in that building, including electrical work, without even obtaining a building permit from the Chestnut Ridge. 27. As detailed by the Building Inspector in his af?davit, he has no idea whether construction work completed in Building #9 was completed by licensed contractors, whether it was completed safely (no inspections of the work were made as the work progressed since no application was applied for), and no electrical underwriters certi?cates were provided to con?rm that the work was completed in accord with the requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. 28. It is clearly within the Village of Chestnut Ridge?s police power to require a School or Educational Use (as well as a religious use) to obtain approvals under the Chestnut Ridge Zoning Code as they pertain to the public health, safety and welfare, inclusive of ?re and safety codes. See Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue v. Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn Harbor, 38 283, at 291-292. 29. Here, the defendants have established their School and other Uses, without: i) Complying with the applicable provisions of the Chestnut Ridge Zoning Code after changing the Uses as re?ected} on the Certi?cates of Occupancy in place for Buildings #14 and #15. ii) Securing building permits for an unknown amount of construction work in buildings they have occupied. Occupied an unknown number of buildings at the premises without Certi?cates of Fire Safety Compliance in place for the any structure at the premises in violation of the Chestnut Ridge Village Code. iv) Occupied Buildings #14 and #15 at the premises unlawfully as a Private School (or schools) of general or religious instruction in violation of the Rockland County Sanitary Code, Articles I and (1.17.1 Operation of a School without proper Fire Safety and Compliance Certi?cation, 1325.0 - Operation of a rooming house without a permit, and 1321.9 ~Fai1ure to ?le current sprinkler system and ?re alarm inspection reports with the Rockland County Department of Health. (V) Occupied an unknown number of buildings at the premises when no copies of any service, repair, inspection or testing reports regarding the sprinkler systems installed in any building have been provided to the Village of Chestnut Ridge Building Department in violation of the Chestnut Ridge Village Code. (vi) Denied access to the premises to municipal officials to ascertain the extent of the occupancy of the existing structures at the premises, as well as the extent of work performed without a permit at the premises. 30. In short, the defendants have decided to occupy structures at the premises, with both school related Uses (Buildings #13, #14, and and non?school related uses (Building without any municipal approvals. The letter from the defendant?s attorney admits this state of facts, and the photographs attached to the af?davit of the Building Inspector con?rm the same. NECESSITY FOR INJUNCTION 31. The present condition and use of the premises contravenes various signi?cant requirements contained in the Zoning Code of the Village of Chestnut Ridge, the Village Code of the Village of Chestnut Ridge, and the State Uniform Fire Code. 32. New York State Village Law 7-714 provides that any violation of the Village of Chestnut Ridge's Zoning Law and Village Code may be enjoined. Unlike the traditional provisional remedy of a preliminary injunction, there is no statutory requirement that the Village Show a likelihood of success; (ii) irreparable harm; or a favorable balancing of the equities. (Compare CPLR Section 6301 with Village Law section 7?714. Where a statute expressly empowers the Village to enjoin violations of the law, the Village must Show only that the law at issue has been violated. See, e. Town of Islip V. Clark, 90 500, 454 894 (2nd Dept. 1982). Thus, where the Village seeks an injunction to enforce its local laws, a lesser burden of proof must be carried. Accordingly, the sworn affidavits of the Village Of?cials, the veri?ed complaint, the instant af?rmation and accompanying exhibits are suf?cient to establish prima facie violations of Village of Chestnut Ridge's local law, and justify the granting of a preliminary injunction pending this Court's ?nal disposition of the issues raised by this proceeding. Incorporated Village of Sea Cliff v. Mario Larrea, 106 876 (2nd Dept 2013). 33. Even under the statutory standard for a preliminary injunction set forth in CPLR 6301 plaintiff meets the traditional three pronged analysis. First, as stated in Section 6301 of the CPLR, the moving party must show that he has demanded and would be entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the commission or continuance of a speci?c act. Then the moving party must show the following three items: i. A likelihood of success on the merits of the permanent injunction action; ii. That the commission or continuation of the act complained of during the pendency of the action would produce irreparable injury to the plaintiff, and A balancing of equities favors his position. 34. Attached to the moving papers as Exhibit A is a veri?ed complaint whereby the plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for violation of the Village Code of the Village of Chestnut Ridge. It is respectfully submitted that the moving papers show that there have been clear violations of the Zoning Chapters of the Village Code of the Village of Chestnut Ridge and that continuance of these acts should be restrained by a preliminary injunction. 35. The next element which must be met by the plainti?? pursuant to CPLR Section 6301 is a showing of a likelihood of success on the merits of the permanent injunction action. The moving papers clearly show that there have been violations of the State Code and the Zoning Chapters of the Village Code and that the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction against said violations. The moving papers of the plaintiff convincingly indicate that the defendant?s use of the premises in Building #17 as an o?ice, and in Buildings #13, 14 and 15 as a school(s), are changes in Use from the last Certi?cates of Occupancy, and established in violation of the Zoning Code of the Village of Chestnut Ridge. Furthermore, the work completed in Building #9 Without a building permit was done so illegally, and the safety of the work and therefore the occupants of that building are at risk. It is respectfully submitted that there is an overwhelming likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits and will obtain a permanent injunction. 36. The next requirement which must be met in order for the plaintiff to obtain a preliminary injunction under the CPLR Section 6301 standard is that there must be a showing of irreparable injury to the plaintiff, if the relief of a preliminary injunction is not granted. The illegal use of the property as a school and/or dormitory housing for young children presents a danger of a potentially catastrophic risk to the health, safety and lives of any persons on the premises, as well as a potential threat to police of?cers, ?re ?ghters and other rescue personnel. The current illegal use of the premises presents a serious threat to the health and safety of the people who make use of the premises. The danger to said persons is real and well within the realm of probability. As the zoning violations continue, the illegal use of the property may further intensify (access is being denied to the property), and the problems and risks exacerbate. 37. The ?nal requirement for the granting of a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6301 is that a balancing of the equities is in favor of the moving party. The equities are clearly in favor of the Village of Chestnut Ridge. The Village is charged with insuring compliance with its laws and has a duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents. The premises, in this case, are being utilized in violation of many provisions of the Village Zoning Code. If the defendants do not correct these violations, dangerous conditions will go unattended at the premises that will pose a life threat, such as a ?re, to a large number of persons. The equities in favor of the defendant are monetary, charging rent and generating income by running a private commercial operation. 38. The operation of an of?ce, school or dormitory in an unsafe condition, without a certi?cate of occupancy, persist in derogation of state and local laws intended to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The unlaw?ll and dangerous use and occupancy of the premises must be properly stopped before harm comes to those very people the premises are purportedly servicing. 39. No previous application for the relief requested has been made. WHEREFORE, your af?rmant for all the foregoing reasons, plaint'?f demands judgment permanently enjoining and directing the defendants to cease all use and occupancy of the premises except in conformity with any Certi?cates of occupancy obtained in accord with ?nal Site Development Plan approval as called for under the Chestnut Ridge Zoning Code, and that the plaintiff have such other and further and different relief as justice may require together with the costs and disbursements of this action. 1/ Dated: Nyack, Ne York Walter R. SeYastian, Esq. January 21", 2017