Thursday, January 22, 2009


The NY State Court of Appeals (the highest court in NYS) has dismissed the Taxter Ridge case, which means that the Appellate Division’s decision remains the law. We now need to move forward cooperatively as a friendly and neighborly town.
We are under obligation to charge the costs of parks and recreation facilities that are located within unincorporated Greenburgh to taxpayers in unincorporated Greenburgh. We will resume efforts to amend the Finneran law so as to give the Town Board the flexibility to expand the use of the parks so as to increase town revenues. This decision may generate some momentum to amend the law so we could rent the tennis courts to a private company during winter months --generating significant revenue to the town and major infrastructure improvements at the tennis courts (paid for by a private company). I will ask the committee that has been reviewing the Finneran Law to meet as soon as possible, to draft proposed state legislation so we can start lobbying our state representatives to amend the law.
Greenburgh Town Supervisor


hal samis said...


Anonymous said...

Due to the piece in the Journal, I decided to dig deep and read Mr.Berstein affirmation.
It is to be framed and
I suggest a display of the affirmation in Townhall, it is art!
Will the politicians in Albany oppose what the courts support?

feiner - time to lead said...

finneran is a poorly written law
it should be revised to give the town board the authority to permit additional sources of revenue to support recreation programs that will enable locations like veteran park to be improved by new pools and a tennis bubble.

time for bob and michelle (and others in unincorporated greenburgh) to step aside and let neighbors work together.

the stale arguments must be cast aside.

obama said it well said...

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

memo to town board- listen to obama said...

the time has come to set aside childish things

Anonymous said...

glad this controversy is behind us. move together

hail gold said...

the most reasonable guy in this whole saga was danny gold from east irvington

gold may have been wrong on taxter but he is right on finneran

Anonymous said...

not exactly
bernstein was wrong on taxter

here it is said...

- 1 -
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
No. 16
In the Matter of Robert B.
Paul J. Feiner, &c., et al.,
Jay Leon, &c., et al.,
Appellant Robert B. Bernstein, Esq., pro se.
Timothy W. Lewis, Esq., for respondents.
Nicholas M. Ward-Willis, Esq., for intervenorsrespondents.
The appeal should be dismissed, without costs, upon the
ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly
Although petitioner's facial and as-applied challenges
to the Finneran Law (L 1982, ch 891) were addressed by the
- 2 - No. 16
- 2 -
Appellate Division, they are not substantial. Petitioner's
facial challenge, insofar as it is predicated on New York
Constitution article VIII, § 3, was not raised at the Appellate
Division and therefore was not directly involved.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appeal dismissed, without costs, in a memorandum. Acting Chief
Judge Ciparick and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones
Decided January 22, 2009

Anonymous said...

sounds like much ado about nothing.

now lets get back to business after this sideshow.

Anonymous said...

" ... facilities that are located within unincorporated Greenburgh to taxpayers in unincorporated Greenburgh."

What about town facilities located outside of unincorporated Greenburgh?

Anonymous said...

What "Town" facilities are located outside of unincorporated Greenburgh?

Anonymous said...

Time for Edgemont to become a village.

Anonymous said...

GReat, now we can keep on with ridiculous TDYCC expenses becuse the villages will let us.

grow up tov said...

grow up tov
admit you stole from the villages at the library and maybe we will help yoo

Anonymous said...

What "Town" facilities are located outside of unincorporated Greenburgh?

Unincorporated Greenburgh's Veteran Park is located in the Village of Ardsley.

veteran park and ardsley said...

actually only 20% of veteran park is in the village of ardsley
the town restricts use of the park to the tov (town outisde villages) - but tov pays no taxes for the 20%

as a result - ardsley taxpayers must pay more

this is wrong

Anonymous said...

Ardsley chose not to pay to use Veteran Park. Get over it. Pay back fees and ypu may join!

join us said...

if you open your clenched fist we might be able to shake hands

time to stop wallowing in the past and move forward

hint - read obama's inaugural speech

Anonymous said...

get over it Bernstien lost move on he and Sal hamis have cost the town enough money let's do like they used to do tar and feather their "little" ass

stop lying about samis said...

hal samis has cost the town nothing.

if you can prove otherwise - give chapter and verse
or better yet dollars and cents.

this is libel.

Samis is a big asset said...

It is a destructive black lie to say that Samis has cost the town. He has worked his butt off to get the town to save money, and there would have been savings and improvements if the town board listened to him.

Anonymous said...

how much time and money has Bernstein's lawsuits cost the town?

Anonymous said...

Just imagine what could have been accomplished if we all worked together? Lawsuits don't accomplish much.

Feiner to blame for town's lawsuits said...

Let's review the bidding here on Bernstein's lawsuits. He filed the first lawsuit when Feiner refused to disclose back in 2003 whether Taxter Ridge, which was to be open town-wide, would be paid for by the entire town or by unincorporated only. He filed the second lawsuit when Feiner told council members Bass and Weinberg to tell Bernstein to sue if he didn't like it that Taxter would be charged only to unincorporated. And he filed the third lawsuit to cover all other parks and rec facilities that are open town-wide, but charged only to unincorporated, which we now know is a violation of the Finneran Law.

Sounds to me like all this litigation could have been avoided if Feiner would have tried to work through the legal problems create by the Taxter purchase, and the town's practice of allowing village residents to use town parks, instead of telling Bernstein that if he didn't like it, he should go sue.

The problem is that Feiner's behavior in telling people who don't like his running afoul of the law to "go sue" has created a lot of needless litigation for the town.

Fortress Bible is another case in point. That case, where a ruling on whether Feiner violated federal laws protecting churches, is expected very soon, and could cost taxpayers as much as $6 million.

In another recent case, Feiner refused to compromise a police officer's disputed four-month claim for disability, and insisted on taking the case all the way up to the Court of Appeals, where the town lost. The legal fees for the town in that case were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In the Westhab zoning change matter last month, Feiner and the town board made a last minute substantive zoning change, without notice and a hearing, in violation of state law, and residents objected. So what did Feiner tell them to do? You guessed it.

He said, "you don't like, go sue."

Seems to me there's something wrong with a town supervisor who invites litigation like this at the drop of a hat.

Anonymous said...

Bob: You lost!

Anonymous said...

libel my ass 3:01 just look at the time that idiot waste's at the board meeting you jerk

Anonymous said...

you're all wrong taxter should of been million dollar homes paying taxes Gold just didn't want larger homes then his in the area him and the magic lady who has cost the town millions soon

Anonymous said...

3:33 if you think he is so good put your money where your mouth is and back his bid for office lol

Anonymous said...

Is there any truth to the rumor that Gold received a fee for his services in securing Taxter Ridge?????????

Anonymous said...

Was the above comment written by the superlawyer? It's inaccurate.

Anonymous said...

Dear Bob @ 4:15,

You lost the first two and will lose the third. Maybe it is you who should stop wasting the taxpayers money and end the frivolous litigation just because you have a vendetta against Feiner. (Funny how you blame everything, including the police case on the Supervisor and not your budddy Bass)

Anonymous said...

I guess the lawyer who beat Bob is a super duper lawyer.

no lawyer said...

the super duper lawyer cant be lewis. must be rosenberg. or maybe you dont have to be a super duper lawyer to beat bernstein

baby talk said...

here is a posting on lohud - i guess the town will now have to put armed guards at the parks to keep the villagers and others out - that will cost tov plenty

isnt this really silly - many village parks are used extensively by tov residents without it being a bid deal

obama said its time to stop the childishness - seems the inaugural was not heard in tov esp in edgemont where it is rumored the greenburgh reporter lives

"Greenburgh's not off the hook here. The Finneran Law also says that Greenburgh's parks and recreational facilities must be restricted in use to residents of unincorporated Greenburgh who alone must pay for them. The appellate court said that Greenburgh violated the law in allowing residents of the six villages to use these facilities. The next lawsuit seeks to enforce those restrictions. Requiring the town's parks and facilities to be restricted in use to the people who pay for them will save tax dollars and stop the town's politically-expedient and expensive practice of allowing village residents to use them tax-free."

by the way - if this leads to the tdycc closing down - that fantastic - its a divisive racial holdover that should no longer be funded.

kiddie talk said...

Here is another posting from the lohud blog.

"Allow me to translate this from legal-ease into quasi-English. An older unconnected lawyer has told the involved lawyers that the corpse of this case has been sucked dry of all the (blood) money, and any hope of there being a renewal of life in this (case) corpse is gone. The initiating lawyer who already has another corpse (case) in County Court (the morgue) believes some life may be renewed in this existing corpse, so he'll wait like a vulture over dead deer for his turn to pick at this (case) corpse again. There you go. Let's talk some more about saving tax dollars as we bill out legal fees. Let's here no more of this frivolous lawsuit malarkey..."

Take heed, Bernstein.

unanswered questions in lawsuit said...

bernstein 2 makes some sense
the tdycc is a townwide facility and not part of greenburgh parks and recreation
so why is it paid for solely by unincorporated greenburgh if its not part of the facilities covered by finneran?

better yet - what town in westchester or the state has a facility like the tdycc which costs millions and duplicates most of the services provided by the town or the county or the state

so lets answer these questions and stop attacking the people who raise them.

Anonymous said...

Good Q's 11:40. At a recent work session discussing TDYCC camp fees,2 striking things emerged. 1) the majority of the freebie campers are from Village of Elmsford 2) there was a substantial focus on establishing "non-resident" (Elmsford?) camp fees.

It appears as if this giving away of services to villagers from TDYCC has become a concerned topic.

What is the full story? Does anyone know?

In the past I have questioned how the town goes about securing grant money and for what purposes. I suspect there is some misuse of funds surrounding these acts as well.

Anonymous said...

Call the police! ah forget it!

elmsford makes no sense said...

elmsford as a village and a school district makes little sense

it should be exhibit A for consolidation

paul - do you have the guts to propose this?

Anonymous said...

What does the court ruling mean for Presser/Webb field? Must the town start checking I.D.s during soccer/volley ball season which, on some summer evenings, attracts hundreds of visitors? Will violators be fined?

Anonymous said...

Will Feiners be violated?

Anonymous said...

LOL! I hope so!

strike 2 said...

onward and upward with bernstein 2

Anonymous said...

Don't bet the house. And don't go wild if he loses. So far he has come up on the down side.

hello kings county said...

winning at the motion level is one thing. this case is for much bigger stakes and will definitely go up to the appellate court in brooklyn if the town loses.

how tdycc is covered by finneran is still a mystery since by definition its a town wide facility and used that way.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the town code is illegal?

Anonymous said...

It will go to the appellate court in Brooklyn no matter who loses. That is the beauty of a lawsuit. It never dies.

the end said...

thats not true
it ends in albany if it goes that far
or even washington dc if its an unusual case.

Anonymous said...

Washington DC? The US Supreme Court? You have delusions of grandeur. It won't get past Brooklyn.

bernstein 2 and tdycc said...

anon at 10:51

you miss the point - lawsuits do end - the end in brooklyn, albany or dc

no one is suggesting that bernstein 2 will go further than brooklyn - but you never know - who thought bernstein 1 would go to the appellate divisions twice and then the court of appeals.

more importantly - why is the tdycc paid for by the B budget taxpayers?

and ever more significantly - why is there a tdycc in the first instance??