Log in Subscribe

Legal battle erupts over proposed Village of Ateres

Patricio Robayo
Posted 10/24/23

THOMPSON — A legal battle is brewing in Sullivan County as residents seek to challenge and annul the decisions made by William Rieber, Jr, Supervisor of the Town of Thompson, and Katherine …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Legal battle erupts over proposed Village of Ateres

Posted

THOMPSON — A legal battle is brewing in Sullivan County as residents seek to challenge and annul the decisions made by William Rieber, Jr, Supervisor of the Town of Thompson, and Katherine Rappaport, Supervisor of the Town of Fallsburg, regarding the Village Incorporation Petition for the Village of Ateres.

An Article 78 petition was filed on October 6 at the Sullivan County Supreme Court in Monticello. It alleges that the decisions are illegal as they fail to comply with the statutory requirements of Village Law §2-206.

The petition has been initiated by two petitioners, Steven Rivela and John Reeves, both residents of the Town of Thompson, who are challenging the decisions made by Thompson and Fallsburg. The lawsuit also includes Mordechai Rosenberg and Hershel Neiman as respondents representing the proposed Village of Ateres.

The legal battle centers around a petition submitted on June 14 which sought to incorporate a new village named the “Village of Ateres” within the boundaries of the Towns of Thompson and Fallsburg.

A public hearing was held on August 3 at Yeshiva Viznitz in Kiamesha Lake, New York, and continued on August 22. 

The public hearing received extensive participation, with approximately one hundred Towns of Thompson and Fallsburg residents offering in-person testimony and submitting written objections totaling 199 pages, according to the petition. 

Rieber and Rappaport determined that the Village Incorporation Petition for the Village of Ateres was legally sufficient. 

In a previous press release, the supervisors acknowledged that many well-articulated objections had been submitted during the review period. 

“However, no qualitative or quantitative analysis is even allowed in the process under current NYS Law. Therefore, many of these objections, while full of merit, are not actual reasons for challenge based on the antiquated Village Law,” said the supervisors. 

The supervisors said The New York State statute governing Village formations, which is over 100 years old, urgently requires a revision, and they were held to the current village law. 

Rivela and Reeves argue that the 13 individuals not registered to vote in New York State are unqualified to vote for town officers in the Town of Thompson or Town of Fallsburg. 

Robert Rosborough, lawyer for those wanting to incorporate the new village, responded to the concerns brought forth in the public hearings that many signatories were not on the “voter rolls,” not registered to vote, or had different addresses than those listed on the “voter list.” He states the Village Law does not require signatories to be on voter rolls, registered to vote, or match addresses. 

Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that nine signatures on the petition were affixed by someone other than the purported signer, further challenging the legal sufficiency of the petition for the new village. 

Rivela and Reeves are seeking to vacate and annul the decisions made by Rieber and Katherine Rappaport and have requested the court’s intervention to fix the situation. 

According to the petition, the application for Article 78 will be submitted to the Sullivan County Supreme Court in Monticello by November 15. 

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here