WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
Saunders, Real Estate, Hamptons<br/>
27east.com

7 Comments by jlc52


Supreme Court lifts injunction on use of Aldrich Park

this is a land use issue. the homeowners are not against a park. a hiring site is not a park. " Nov 24, 09 12:46 PM

Southampton Town is prepared to withdraw lawsuit over Aldrich Lane park

you are incorrect -the appellate court did not rule that" Jan 26, 10 3:03 PM

Southampton Town considers future appointments

they are not joint plaintiffs" Jan 26, 10 3:20 PM

they are not joint plaintiffs" Jan 26, 10 3:24 PM

Southampton Town is prepared to withdraw lawsuit over Aldrich Lane park

Perhaps you should read the Court's decision. (and perhaps understand how the law and the courts operate before making such a bold statement)

The Court did not rule on a First Amendment issue. They simply stated that the Supreme Court should have allowed intervention by the John Doe appellants (2 day laborers) because "they possess a a real and substantial interest in the outcome of [the] action." This court did not, nor would not 'rule' on a first amendment issue in that manner. " Jan 26, 10 5:10 PM

Southampton Town allows litigation on Aldrich Lane park to continue

You are incorrect on a number of points.
First, the article itself states that the Town is hoping to reach some sort of agreement with Mayor Epley, out of court if possible.
Secondly, the case was not "already decided by the appellate court." The merits of the case have yet to be decided. The Second Department ruled on specific issues - mainly that certain parties should have been allowed to intervene in the case - a procedural issue. And, it is was determined that a preliminary injunction should not have been granted. A preliminary injunction bars any action by the Village during the pending litigation. It is temporary relief.
Third, "the members of the Berkoski family" are not “the only people who stand to gain anything from the litigation." Only one home on Aldrich Lane is Berkoski-owned. Other Aldrich Lane residents joined in the effort to stop a what in effect is an improper and across from their homes. I am sure you would not want such an operation right outside your front door and to be your view from your front window. Not to mention a potentially lowered property value. Further, the subject Berkoski-owned property has sentimental, familial value and is not merely a "rental property". And, none of this has anything do with immigration or whatever other issues people are trying to tie in. It is strictly a land use issue. Resolution of this issue also would result in a gain for all Town residents in upholding the very purpose of purchasing land with community preservation funds.
And, finally, William Berkoski’s proposed appointment to the Planning Board has nothing to do with this case. As a lifetime Southampton Town resident, it is not unheard of to own property in the Town and to also seek to be on one of its boards at some point. Oh the horror! There are no conclusions to be drawn. " Jan 26, 10 5:15 PM

Southampton Town is prepared to withdraw lawsuit over Aldrich Lane park

That is absolutely incorrect. " Jan 26, 10 6:16 PM