You are here: / / RESOLUTION IMPOSING A SURCHARGE ON DEVELOPERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER...

RESOLUTION IMPOSING A SURCHARGE ON DEVELOPERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAINS DECLARED VOID, WATER AUTHORITY FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE BEFORE ENACTING THE RESOLUTION.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county water authority did not provide the property developers (called “beneficial owners”) with sufficient notice of a resolution which imposed a surcharge upon the developers for the cost of construction of water mains to service the project. The resolution was declared void:

Pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1078(6), the Water Authority is authorized, generally, to impose a surcharge, such as the surcharge at issue in this matter (see Public Authorities Law § 1078[6]; see also id. § 1078[9], [13]). Nonetheless, the record shows that the Water Authority, in enacting the 2009 resolution, failed to provide proper prior notice of the proposed action to the beneficial owners and an opportunity to be heard. Where a municipality seeks to impose a special tax assessment upon a property owner, due process requires that the property owner be granted prior notice and a right to appear … .

Under the circumstances here, the “surcharge” imposed by the 2009 resolution is analogous to a special tax assessment, requiring that the property owner be given prior notice and a right to appear … . A representative of the beneficial owners averred in an affidavit that they received no prior notice of the Board meeting at which the 2009 resolution was adopted. The Water Authority submitted a copy of a meeting notice and agenda, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Water Authority averred that, prior to the meeting, that agenda was published in a newspaper and posted on the Water Authority website; however, the Water Authority failed to provide proof of publication of the agenda or any evidence of service of the agenda upon the beneficial owners, although the addresses of the beneficial owners were known to the Water Authority. Matter of 22-50 Jackson Ave. Assoc., L.P. v Suffolk County Water Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 00299, 2nd Dept 1-18-17

 

MUNCIPAL LAW (RESOLUTION IMPOSING A SURCHARGE ON DEVELOPERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAINS DECLARED VOID, WATER AUTHORITY FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE BEFORE ENACTING THE RESOLUTION)/SURCHARGES (MUNICIPAL LAW, RESOLUTION IMPOSING A SURCHARGE ON DEVELOPERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAINS DECLARED VOID, WATER AUTHORITY FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE BEFORE ENACTING THE RESOLUTION)/WATER MAINS (MUNICIPAL LAW, RESOLUTION IMPOSING A SURCHARGE ON DEVELOPERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAINS DECLARED VOID, WATER AUTHORITY FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE BEFORE ENACTING THE RESOLUTION)

You might also like
ACCIDENT REPORT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT NOTIFY THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS, THEREFORE LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.
RENOVATION OF PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES DISQUALIFIES HOMEOWNER FROM HOMEOWNERS’ EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6);QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT HOMEOWNER’S INTENTION AT TIME OF INJURY.
THE VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY FROM A TIRE SWING IN THE VILLAGE PLAYGROUND; THE VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CERTIFICATION ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS WAS NOT A VALID 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND THE CROSS-MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS WATCHING FOOTBALL PRACTICE FROM THE SIDELINES WHEN A BLOCKING SLED, PUSHED BY SEVERAL PLAYERS, VEERED OFF TO THE SIDE AND RAN OVER PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE APPLIES TO SPECTATORS, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Setting Aside a Verdict as Against the Weight of the Evidence Explained
Criteria for Determining Motions to Dismiss Affirmative Defenses Explained
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO REJECT THE LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVED THE LATE SERVICE AND DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) LIABILITY APPLIED, DEFENDANTS... ACCIDENT REPORT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT NOTIFY...