In a copy of the statement signed and released by Deputy Clerk-in-Charge Joseph Di Talia for the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, it was announced that the Honorable Thomas C. Platt, district judge, rendered an oral decision on Nov. 6 denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, instead granting the defendant's motion to dismiss in Garden City Center Associates versus the Incorporated Village of Garden City. The statement, dated Nov. 9 and filed with the Clerk of the Court Robert C. Heinemann's office, states, "...it is ordered and adjudged that plaintiff Garden City Center Associates take nothing of the defendant Incorporated Village of Garden City; and that this action is hereby dismissed."

Attorney Peter J. Mastaglio, of Cullen and Dykman, handled the case for the Village, and noted in a telephone interview with Garden City Life that this case follows an attempt by Garden City Center Associates to compel the Village to purchase property owned by the plaintiff to be converted into parking for their tenants on Franklin Avenue by bringing their case to the State Courts. That suit was dismissed by the State, Mastaglio explains, and then this recent suit was filed by Garden City Center Associates with the federal courts, arguing that their civil rights had been violated by the Village when they refused to purchase the property in 1997.

Many residents will recall this issue as the Houses for Parking debate that raged in Village Hall and the letters to the editor columns of the local papers. The point of contention between Garden City Center Associates and the Village is the Board of Trustees' March 20, 1997 vote, under Mayor Richard Benack, to acquire two houses -- 114 Tenth Street and 116 Eleventh Street -- to be demolished and converted into parking and a landscaped parking buffer for Garden City Center Associates two buildings at 1010 and 1050 Franklin Avenue. When the Village sided with residents who opposed the purchase of the land by the Village for parking and voted not to follow plans laid out in the approximately 40-year-old Parking and Buffer Strip Plan, Garden City Center Associates argued that a promise to them had been broken.

Anthony A. Albanese, general partner of Garden City Center Associates, reacted to the judge's dismissal of his company's case and discussed his opinions on the history of the issue in a written public statement issued last week. He commented, "The Village made a clear commitment to us to create this much-needed parking when it issued building permits for our buildings in the 1970s. The Village plainly and illegally reneged on that commitment. Incredibly, the trustees ignored a January 1997 report by the Village's Business Planning Coalition that, after an 18-month study, urged the trustees to complete the parking plan to help spark the revitalization of the Franklin Avenue Business District. The coalition's report, as well as every previous parking study undertaken by the Village, confirmed that Parking Field 10 has less than 50 percent of the parking spaces required by the Village Code. The trustees also ignored the positive recommendation of two property owners' associations representing more than 60 percent of the Village's homeowners."

After the judge rendered his decision, the plaintiff and the defedant each reported the results of the case to the media, each report presenting widely differing views on what had occurred, further demonstrating the division over this issue.

Albanese Development Corporation issued a release entitled, "Federal Court Says It's Up to Village Trustees to Provide Additional Parking for Franklin Avenue Business District." The release claimed, "There was no dispute about the critical need for more parking but District Court Judge Thomas C. Platt ruled in Uniondale on Nov. 6 that it was within the discretionary powers of the Village to determine where and when to provide additional municipal parking." Anthony Albanese stated, "This ruling puts the issue squarely before the Village trustees once more. It also points out very clearly that the politics of paralysis cannot continue in Garden City and that it's time for Village leadership to step in and provide positive steps that will assure the continued viability of the Franklin Avenue Business District. This action is critically important to the future of our Village."

Peter Mastaglio announced in Cullen and Dykman's post-decision statement, "Judge Platt stated on the record that he does not find that the Plan [the Parking and Buffer Strip Plan] constituted a binding obligation on the part of the successive Village boards. He stated that decisions as to whether properties should be purchased are matters within the discretion of the Village board and that it is not appropriate for a federal court to compel a Village to purchase properties after the trustees have determined that under the circumstances purchase of the properties is not appropriate."

With regard to the violation of the plaintiff's civil rights, Anthony Albanese commented, "What is more important, we feel we have been illegally discriminated against. As the Village's parking plan requires, eight of the 11 properties earmarked to be bought for purchase were purchased when offered to the Village. We and the previous owners of our properties paid benefit assessments for parking plan improvements that did not provide parking for our buildings. The last benefit assessment was imposed on us as recently as last year. The only offered properties the Village has failed to buy are the two that would provide parking for our buildings. Why are we being treated differently from all other owners whose buildings benefit from the Village's provision of safe and convenient parking?"

Mastaglio states in his release, "Judge Platt also rejected plaintiff's argument that its civil rights were violated and that it was denied equal protection under the law because over the years it had paid benefit assessments when parking fields other than Field 10 were expanded." Mastaglio expanded upon this point in his telephone interview stating, "The judge made no ruling or statements that the Village violated the plaintiff's civil rights. Nor did he make any statements indicating that the Village should purchase the property and create the additional parking. What he said was that this was an issue of parking and was a Village issue, not a matter for the federal courts. The entire lawsuit was dismissed by the courts, first at the state level and now at the federal level."

Garden City Center Associates can appeal this decision, but in the meantime, the Village is under no obligation to purchase either 114 Tenth Street or 116 Eleventh Street.