The Village of Garden City received two decisions last month regarding the St. Paul's property - one was in favor of the village regarding the Garden City Company, Inc. lawsuit while the other lawsuit, filed by the Kenny and Rafferty families, was not.

Garden City Company Litigation

The Appellate Division, in affirming Justice Winslow's decision, ruled that the Garden City Company, Inc. had no claims to the St. Paul's property. Justice Winslow dismissed the company's claim, stating it had "no interest in the various parcels of property conveyed to the Cathedral of the Incarnation in the 1880s by Cornelia Stewart, her trustee and her heirs." The Cathedral acquired the land through three deeds executed in the late 1800s. The first deed, executed in 1885, contained a restriction that the property was to be used for religious and educational purposes "without power, right or authority to grant, convey, lease, mortgage the same in any way or manner whatsoever." The two later deeds contained similar restrictions.

The Cathedral and the village executed a memorandum of understanding in December 1992 wherein the village agreed to acquire the property for a certain price by condemnation. Thereafter, in April 1993 the Cathedral filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11. The bankruptcy court ordered that the automatic stay be lifted with respect to the village's efforts to institute this proceeding.

The Garden City Company claimed an interest in the property, pursuant to a fourth deed, dated Jan. 27, 1893. The company also claimed an interest under that deed to certain unopened street beds, known as the Madison Avenue and Ninth Street road beds. The company maintained that the grantors in each of the original deeds retained a reversionary interest, which was later conveyed to the company by the heirs of the original grantors pursuant to the company deed. The company later claimed the Cathedral violated the restrictions contained in the original deeds by selling the property to the village and that the violation automatically terminated its interest in the property.

The village moved for summary judgment, arguing that the original deeds in fact did not create a reversionary interest. The Supreme Court granted the village's motion for summary judgment, finding that the original deeds created, at most, a right to reentry. Further, the court held that the company had no interest in the roadbeds. With respect to the Madison Avenue roadbed, the court ruled that the Cathedral owned that roadbed by adverse possession, noting that the Cathedral's construction of a building on the roadbed and its continued use and cultivation of the roadbed satisfied the requirements of adverse possession.

As for the company's claim to the Ninth Street roadbed, the court determined that a subsequent unrecorded deed between the company and the Cathedral conveyed the roadbed to the Cathedral.

The Supreme Court granted the village summary judgment, dismissing the company's claim. The original deeds did not contain a reversionary interest, and, at most, created a right to reentry. Moreover, the deeds did not contain any language providing for the automatic termination of the Cathedral's interest in the property in the event that the property was no longer used for "religious or educational purposes."

Lastly, any attempt by the heirs of the original grantors to assign a right of reentry to the company would be rendered void, since, under common law, such a right was not devisable at the time that the original deeds were executed.

Peter Mastaglio of Garden City's Cullen and Dykman LLP, the village's attorney in the appeal, said the next and last step is for the Garden City Company to seek leave, either in the Appellate Division or in the Court of Appeals, to appeal to the Court of Appeals in Albany.

"I question whether the company will take that additional step," he said. "If no further appeal is taken after 30 days, a final judgment will be entered by the court bringing to an end the condemnation proceeding whereby the village took title to the property for an agreed upon price of $7.25 million."

The Kenny Litigation

With regard to the Kenny litigation, the court decided against the village in March 2001, stating the property could not be sold or leased to a commercial entity without the state legislature's approval because doing so would be "an illegal alienation of a public trust policy." The property was purchased for municipal uses only. The village appealed the ruling but recently lost when the Appellate Division upheld the original decision on Dec. 31.

The Village of Garden City has fought for its right to lease part of the St. Paul's property to a private commercial company to be used as a retirement/assisted living facility for years. The Kenny case, as it became known, began years ago when four residents claimed the village's plan to lease a portion of St. Paul's for an assisted living facility was in "violation of the stated intent of the village's purchase of the property." In March of 2001, Judge John Burke ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, James and Helen Kenny and Lawrence and Barbara Rafferty.

The suit 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" constitutes an "illegal alienation of public trust property." Through this declaration, the village would not be able to sell or lease the property without state legislature approval.

The second action sought to claim that the property had been effectively or impliedly dedicated as public park property and therefore could not be sold or leased without approval. In the third action sought, the Kenny and Rafferty families 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" developed.

While the court found that no portion of the property had been dedicated as a public park, it did rule that upon acquisition, the property became the subject of a public trust and therefore required the state legislature's approval of any long-term lease of any portion of the land.

Michael Ciaffa, the Meyer, Suozzi, English and Klein attorney representing the plaintiffs, said his party was pleased that the judge agreed with what they had been saying all along - that the historic property was acquired for use by all town residents, not for development.