Wednesday, January 27, 2010

A Relatively Short Summary of the Fire Place History Club's "Notice of Motion"

From Richard Thomas:

After the Town had filed its Verified Answer to the Club's Verified Petition, the Fire Place History Club filed a "Notice of Motion" indicating its intention to move the Court for an order directing Summary Judgment in favor of the Club.

In the Notice of Motion, the Fire Place History Club contended that all necessary factual issues are settled or so one-sided that they need not be tried.

The Town had claimed that it had no obligation to remove the grass and weeds from nine of the ten cemeteries on the Fire Place History Club's list because these nine graveyards were "private cemeteries." The Town further implied that in order to be a public cemetery, a cemetery must have been one formed by a cemetery association (or, at least, the Town implied that in order for any of the cemeteries on the Club's list to have "a public nature,"
they must have originally operated under the cemetery association laws of the State of New York).

The Club's Notice of Motion made the following points:

1. The Town had contended that it is only through the sale and purchase of mapped lands or plots to the public, such as provided for in the Rural Cemetery Act of 1847, that a cemetery can be rendered "public." The Rural Cemetery Act of 1847 was the first general cemetery association law passed in New York State.
In the motion, the Fire Place History Club showed that the history of Section 291 (Town Cemetery Law) pre-dates that of cemetery association law by several decades.
The first sentence of the current Section 291 derives directly from a Revised Law of 1828 (which itself was a re-enactment of a law passed in 1826). When that law became effective, it applied to cemeteries that had existed in 1813 and earlier. The Town had stated that the provisions of Section 291 applied only to "public" cemeteries, so there must necessarily be conditions that can cause a cemetery to have "a public nature" other than the single method stated by the Town; that is, the "sale and purchase of mapped lands or plots to the public." The sale of plots to the public became an activity sanctioned by law long after the first sentence of Section 291 was written, a sentence which has changed very little in its wording over a span of 182 years.

2. The Fire Place History Club then described three other methods by which a "private cemetery" might acquire "a public nature."

a. A cemetery acquires "a public nature" when it is purchased by a public governmental entity. A "private cemetery" can no longer be "private"
if it no longer has a "private" owner.
One of the cemeteries on the Fire Place History Club's list, the Rose cemetery, is on land owned by the Town. In its Verified Answer, the Town acknowledged that it had a duty to care for that cemetery.
In its Verified Answer, the Town had referenced an Opinion of the State Comptroller. In that opinion, the State Comptroller stated that even though the governmental entity owning a cemetery might not be the Town, it was still the Town's responsibility, under Section 291, to remove the grass and weeds and preserve, care for, and fence the cemetery. Section 291 places the obligation of preserving and maintaining such cemeteries on the Town, even when the property on which they are located is not owned by the Town Section 291 places the duty on the Town of caring for such cemeteries, "by whomsoever owned."
Four additional cemeteries on the Fire Place History Club's list were acknowledged by the Town to be owned by other governmental entities. The Town claimed it had no responsibility for caring for these cemeteries, but the Opinion of the State Comptroller shows that claim to be invalid.

b. A cemetery acquires "a public nature" when the property where it is located reverts to the people of the State of New York as a result of the title having failed "from a defect of heirs." Under the Abandoned Property Law of the State of New York, a cemetery on a property for which no one any longer holds the title escheats to the people, and thus it acquires "a public
nature."
The "public nature" is acquired upon there being a defect of heirs, not when some public agent files to acquire the title to the property for the State of New York. In fact, no public agent can make such a filing until after the property has reverted to the people.
So the "state of having a public nature" can exist for a cemetery whether or not any public agent may have claimed title to it for the state; that "public nature" exists from the time when there existed "a defect of heirs." At that moment, the land "reverted to the people." Land that has reverted to the people is undeniably public land, "by whomsoever owned," and when such land is a cemetery, it is the duty of the Town to remove the grass and weeds from it and preserve, care for, and fence it.
Four of the remaining cemeteries on the Club's list were declared in an affidavit filed by the Town to have no known owners. A burial ground can be private only if there exists a private owner who controls who may be buried in it and regulates access to it. The Town is unable to show that there are any longer any living persons who hold title to any of the four cemeteries.
Thus, these properties have reverted to the people and have "a pubic nature."
The cemeteries on those properties, being owned by the people, are public cemeteries which the Town must maintain and preserve.

c. A cemetery can acquire "a public nature" by "public user." An opinion of the State Comptroller in 1965 affirms that a cemetery may become public by "public user." That opinion implies that use of a cemetery by the public for a period of fourteen years can cause a cemetery to take on "a public nature." Unless an owner takes some positive action "amounting to an interruption to the "adverse user," the continued enjoyment and use of the cemeteries by the public over an extended period of time can establish "a public easement interest" in them.
The remaining cemetery on the Club's list was shown to be just such a cemetery, and therefore one that the Town was obligated to maintain and preserve. In fact, all ten cemeteries had been shown by the Town's own actions to have been adopted by the Town through its caring for and maintaining them from as early as 1937. The public had continued to use the cemeteries even after the Town ceased caring for them, so the public user easement had not been extinguished. All ten cemeteries were cemeteries of "a public nature" based on this fact alone (regardless of whether or not any heir might someday be found). These cemeteries are cemeteries, by whomsoever owned, for which the Town must remove the grass and weeds and which the Town must preserve, care for, and fence.


[Note: In addition to the three methods given above through which a cemetery may acquire "a public nature," and the single method given by the Town --- through a cemetery association operating under the laws for such associations passed in 1847 and later, there is a fifth way, through a special act of the New York State legislature. This fifth method is represented by an act incorporating the Westfield cemetery in 1843 and by an act reviving the Utica Cemetery Association in 1844.]


Fire Place History Club Responds to Town of Brookhaven on Cemetery Maintenance Suit

January 25, 2010

On January 13, 2010, the Fire Place History Club of Brookhaven hamlet, NY, received a response to their lawsuit against the Town of Brookhaven forcing the Town to maintain the historic cemeteries in Brookhaven and South Haven Hamlets, as required by New York State law. The efforts of the Fire Place History Club are documented elsewhere in this blog, and are further documented at the BrookhavenSouthHaven.org cemetery pages.

Immediately on receiving the Town's response, a subcommittee of the Fire Place History Club was formed to prepare a response. Dr. Richard A. Thomas, a retired physicist, took on the task of researching the specific objections in point of law raised by the Town of Brookhaven. He spent several days on this research and prepared a paper for our attorney, Regina Seltzer. After reviewing his research, she decided that it was appropriate to ask for a summary judgment in favor the Fire Place History "on the grounds that Brookhaven Town violated its lawful Town duties as explicitly set forth in Cemeteries Town Law Section 291 and that respondents have raised no triable issue of fact a summary determination is appropriate based on the pleadings, papers and admissions ...." She further concluded that the Town's answer, denying knowledge or information as to allegations in our original filing and objections in point of law "are shameful, blatantly false fabrications, without any basis in fact, intended to mislead the Court."

The subcommittee—Marty Van Lith, Richard Thomas, and John Deitz then met with Regina Seltzer for over four hours on Sunday afternoon, drafting the reply to the Town's specific contentions. This document was then filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York at Central Islip on Monday, January 25, 2010.

The argument section of this filing is found in the first link. This version, a pdf file, is identical to the court filing except that a few typographical errors have been corrected. Since it is based on the original word processing document, it is considerable smaller than the scanned versions. The second (11 MB), third (12 MB), and fourth (7 MB) links are scanned pdf versions of the actual documents, including affidavits and exhibits, as filed with the court.

1-Arguments

Actual scanned documents included in the 25 January 2010 filing:
2- Arguments and Affidavits 3- Exhibits 4-Orginal Town Response
If you are having difficulty downloading these documents from this blog, please go to this page


At a luncheon meeting of the Fire Place History Club on Tuesday, January 26, 2010, Regina Seltzer discussed the suit with club members. It should be noted, Regina is doing this work pro bono. She is also a former Town of Brookhaven councilwoman.

L-R: Jeb Barry (head split), George Koch, Bob Brown, Betty Bundy, Richard Thomas, John Deitz, Diane Martens, Marty Van Lith, Regina Seltzer, Ron Kinsella, Eban Ludlow, Faith McCutcheon, and Anita Cohen

Town of Brookhaven Responds to Cemetery Maintence Suit

January 13, 2010

In July of 2009, the Fire Place History Club filed a lawsuit with the New York State Supreme Court in an effort to force the Town of Brookhaven to maintain the ancient historic cemeteries in the hamlets of South Haven and Brookhaven, NY. This action followed three years of efforts to get the Town to maintain the cemeteries in accordance with State law, and repeated promises by Town officials that they would do so—but with no substantitive action. The efforts of the Fire Place History Club are documented elsewhere in this blog, and are further documented at the BrookhavenSouthHaven.org cemetery pages.

The Brookhaven Town Attorney, on 13 January filed a response to the July court filing—nearly six months after the original filing with the court—obviously an attempt to delay in the hope of discouraging that the reasonable requests of ordinary citizens.

Their response was essentially that the Town had no obligation maintain the cemeteries, and the that the Fire Place History Club had no standing to sue the Town.

To view the Town of Brookhaven's January 2010 response, click

Cover Letter and Affidavits | Town Arguments | Exhibit D

The Town arguments document included all their Exhibits except Exhibit D. Exhibit D is a copy of an inventory of all cemeteries in New York State prepared by the Association of Municipal Historians of New York State. Ironically, it's preface contains the following:

William Edward Gladstone quote

I suspect that the Association of Municipal Historians would be appalled that their informative inventory would be used by the Town as one of the justifications for not maintaining historic cemeteries.

The Fire Place History Club is proceeding with the suit, and has organized a sub-committee to work with our attorney Regina Seltzer on the document.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Newsday: Fire destroys Brookhaven's historic 'Red Barn'

A story in Newsday was published Wednesday, 20 January 2010, and can be viewed at the link above or as an archived version. There is a good picture, much better than my camera is able to produce.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Burnett Barn Fire Followup

Tuesday Morning, January 19, 2010—I did not stay to the bitter end at the fire scene Monday night, but Tuesday morning pretty well reveal the inevitable.


Photo by Marty Van Lith

I believe that is Jen Puleston Clement examining the scene. In the background is the Hawkins Barn, carefully restored by Tom & Ellen Williams.


Photo by Marty Van Lith

The following is a digitally enhanced picture taken as I approached the scene from across the farm field from the Rowley's backyard. While it doesn't show much detail, and the fire department is already applying large quantities of water, the extent of fire involvement is obvious.


Photo by John Deitz

Finally, a pen and ink sketch of "The Red Barn" by nearby neighbor Ann Wiswall:

One correspondent said the fire brought back memories of the Phillips barn fire of several decades ago (the house at 334 Beaver Dam Road.). Does anyone remember when this fire actually occurred?

Monday, January 18, 2010

Burnett Barn in Brookhaven, NY Destroyed by Fire

The historic Burnett Barn in Brookhaven hamlet was destroyed by fire Monday evening, January 18, 2010.
The barn was originally a part of the Burnett Farm. This barn was constructed about 1900, likely replacing another barn on the farm. It was one of the few remaining barn structures in the Hamlet -- once largely a farm community, and is typical of the small farm barns of the late 19th, early 20th centuries. It had been used for many informal community events, and most recently as the centerpiece of the HOG (Hamlet Organic Garden).

When I first realized that the fire department was responding to my neighborhood, I looked out the windows to see if I could see anything. Flames were leaping into the air some 60-70 feet at what I thought might be the Burnett barn. By the time I got my shoes on, found the camera, and got out the door (maybe 3-4 minutes), the fire department had already knocked the flames down considerably.

But it was clear that the building was totally involved when they arrived.

Even though they quickly brought the fire under control, it regularly flared up again. It was clear that the building was not safe to enter, and there were several rooms and a partially concealed attic space.

I'll get more pictures tomorrow.

Friday, January 15, 2010

STOP LEVY’S “LUNACY VILLAGE” aka “Legacy Village”

From: Yaphank Taxpayers & Civic Association, Inc.
<yaphankcivic@yaphankcivic.org>
Subject: Please sign our on-line petition
STOP LEVY’S “LUNACY VILLAGE”
URGENT ACTION REQUIRED

Please sign our on-line petition to the Suffolk County Legislature. It is critical that the voice of all Suffolk County citizens is heard by our Legislator’s. They must IMMEDIATELY and PERMANENTLY, with urgency, HALT the sale of the currently designated “Legacy Village” taxpayer-owned County property in Yaphank, as surplus.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Lunacy/

Additional information can be found on our web-site at www.yaphankcivic.org

Thank you.

Our mailing address is:
Yaphank Taxpayers & Civic Association Inc.
P.O. Box 41
Yaphank, New York 11980
Add us to your address book
Copyright (C) 2009 Yaphank Taxpayers & Civic Association Inc. All rights reserved.