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
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Court Can Not Order Treatment as Condition of Future Visitation—Okay to Order Treatment as Component of Supervised Visitation
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRECONDITIONS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
A STIPULATIION OF SETTLEMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE A DUTY UPON A PERSON NOT A PARTY TO THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
Requirements for Indefinite Tolling of 30-Day Period During Which a No-Fault Carrier Must Determine Whether to Pay or Deny a Claim Explained
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW OF THE NONPARTY TREATING PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY (NYC) HAD ENTERED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS CONCERNING THE REPAIR OF A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK, DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
THE ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND HER MOTHER REQUIRING MOTHER TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO THE PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN A YEAR AND THEREFORE DID NOT VIOLATE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS; THE RELATED BREACH OF CONTRACT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) LIABILITY APPLIED, DEFENDANTS... ZONING BOARD DID NOT SET OUT A FACTUAL BASIS FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PRECEDENT...