Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. City of Albany, 62 N.Y.2d 990 (1984)

A municipality waives defenses of standing and statute of limitations in a zoning challenge if it fails to raise them in its answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss.

Summary

Save the Pine Bush, Inc. sued the City of Albany challenging a zoning amendment, arguing that the City failed to provide proper notice to the County Planning Board. The City argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the action was time-barred, and that no notice was required. The Court of Appeals held that the City waived its standing and statute of limitations defenses by failing to raise them in its answer or a pre-answer motion. The Court also found that the City had not demonstrated substantial prejudice to support its claim of laches and that proper notice to the County Planning Board was required.

Facts

The City of Albany enacted a zoning amendment. Save the Pine Bush, Inc. challenged the amendment, alleging that the City failed to provide notice to the County Planning Board as required by the Westchester County Administrative Code. The plaintiffs commenced the action 16 months after the enactment of the amendment. No construction had begun on the property when the suit was filed.

Procedural History

The lower court granted summary judgment to Save the Pine Bush, Inc. The City of Albany appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed. The City of Albany then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the City waived its defenses of standing and statute of limitations by failing to assert them in its answer or a pre-answer motion to dismiss.
2. Whether the City demonstrated sufficient prejudice to establish laches.
3. Whether notice to the County Planning Board of hearings on the proposed zoning amendment was required.

Holding

1. Yes, because CPLR 3211(e) requires such defenses to be raised in the answer or a pre-answer motion to dismiss to avoid waiver.
2. No, because the City did not demonstrate substantial prejudice resulting from the delay.
3. Yes, because section 277.61 of the Westchester County Administrative Code requires such notice.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that under CPLR 3211(e), the City waived its defenses of standing and the statute of limitations because it failed to raise them in its answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss. CPLR 3211(e) states that “an objection that the summons and complaint… was not properly served is waived if, having raised such an objection in a pleading, the objecting party does not move for judgment on that ground within sixty days after serving the pleading, unless the court extends the time upon good cause shown.” The Court cited Matter of Prudco Realty Corp. v Palermo, 60 NY2d 656, 657 and Trayer v State of New York, 90 AD2d 263, 265-266 to support this holding.

Regarding laches, the Court found that the City failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice resulting from the 16-month delay. The Court noted that no construction had begun on the property and that the assertion regarding the potential loss of federal funds was insufficient to establish actual prejudice.

The Court agreed with the lower courts that notice to the County Planning Board was required under section 277.61 of the Westchester County Administrative Code. The Court distinguished between the presumption of constitutionality, which requires rebutting evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the presumption of regularity of procedures, which only shifts the burden of going forward. The City Clerk’s affidavit did not establish a normal procedure of giving the required notice, but only that notices were mailed when they were required under the City’s interpretation of section 277.61.