In a court battle that was begun over three years ago by four residents who claimed that the village's plan to lease a portion of the St. Paul's property for an assisted living facility was in violation of the stated intent of the village's purchase of the property, Judge John Burke found in favor of the plaintiffs.

James and Helen Kenny and Lawrence and Barbara Rafferty brought about the suit, which asked the judge to rule on three actions. The first portion of the suit sought a declaration that the village's lease of a portion of the property acquired by the village in 1993 "for village purposes, including recreational purposes," constitutes an illegal alienation of public trust property. Through this declaration, the village would not be able to sell or lease the property without approval from the State Legislature.

The second action sought to claim that the property has been effectively or impliedly dedicated as public park property and therefore could not be sold or leased without approval from the State Legislature.

In the third action, the plaintiffs requested, that if the judge did not find either of the first two declarations to be true, that any lease by the village have an "out clause," whereby the village could take back the property "if an unanticipated need develops."

Peter Mastaglio, an attorney with Cullen and Dykman, the firm representing the village in what has become known as the Kenny Case, stated, "While the Court found that no portion of the St. Paul's property had been dedicated as a public park, which was the subject of the trial, it also found that upon acquisition the property became the subject of a public trust and therefore the approval of the State Legislature was required for any long-term lease of any portion of the property." Because he did find against the village with regard to the public trust designation, the third action was "moot" according to the judge.

Michael Ciaffa, the Meyer, Suozzi, English, and Klein attorney representing the plaintiffs said, "We're pleased that the judge agreed with what we've been saying all along, that this beautiful historic property was acquired for use by all town residents, not for development."

James Kenny, said, "This is a win for the people that upholds an ancient doctrine of public trust, namely that government should not be allowed to go into the real estate business through the process of eminent domain."

According to Village Counsel Gary Fishberg, also with Cullen and Dykman, the park trust designation is much more common than the public trust. When asked about the meaning of public trust, Fishberg stated, "The concept seems to be that if you acquire property for a specific purpose and you tell everybody it's for that specific purpose and you use it for that purpose then maybe there is some public interest in that property that makes it a public trust." Fishberg said the judge went further than that, and said that because this property was acquired for municipal or public purposes it automatically became a public trust and cannot be sold or leased without the approval of the State Legislature. Fishberg noted that this would encompass all properties bought by any municipality, because villages and municipalities are only allowed to purchase a property if it is for municipal purposes. Fishberg says that the village believes the judge went too far with his conclusion. He further noted that village law requires them to dispose of any surplus property and after extensive study, the village found that the cost of using St. Paul's for a municipal purpose would be excessive.

Under the judge's ruling, said Fishberg, if the village did decide they could move village hall and the school administration over to St. Paul's, which is currently being reconsidered by the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's, then the village would also not be able to sell or lease the property where the current village hall is located without approval from the State Legislature.

"The village, in our opinion acted prudently in acquiring the property and then exhaustively looking to see if something could be done with it for a municipal purpose, determining that it couldn't, and then making a prudent decision that it should dispose of that property by lease," said Fishberg.

Fishberg further commented that the preservation of the facade of the historic main building of St. Paul's, which was part of the village's lease with CareMatrix, the assisted living company which planned to lease 10 out of the 48.6 acres, might be considered a municipal purpose.

According to Fishberg, the lease of the building to an assisted living facility might also be considered a village purpose because in some instances villages are authorized to run hospital/nursing home facilities. "So it's not that far of a stretch for the village to want to have a senior assisted living facility, which could be for the betterment of the village and the village residents."

In addition, Fishberg stated that the village never stated its intention to use the historic building for any specific purpose.

It is with these objections in mind, that the village board has authorized counsel to begin the appeal process. It was the Nassau County Supreme Court that found against the village and the case will be appealed to the Appellate Division 2nd Department in Brooklyn. The next level after that would be to bring the case to the New York State Court of Appeals, which is the highest state court. The village has to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of receiving the decision which is why the board quickly decided to appeal. At the same time, the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's has plans to meet with five architects to look at some proposals about how much it might cost to rehabilitate the historic main building to be used as a village building and whether it would make any sense for the village to go that route. Fishberg said that the village wants to have those figures before they even consider going to the State Legislature because if they do go to the Legislature they want to be able to answer affirmatively that every possible municipal use for the building has been exhaustively considered.