Village Herald -- Malverne church prepares to sue Village

As a result of its inability to receive expansion plan approval from the Malverne Architecture Review Board in a timely fashion, the Church of the Intercessor is poised to file a lawsuit against the Village. The church is seeking permits to expand their Sunday School rooms, build more office space and construct a new parking lot.
"They have been playing cat and mouse games," Ann Detiere, attorney for the church said. "There is a point when you have to get off the treadmill."
The decision to proceed with litigation against the village came after the last meeting of the architecture board on March 16, when the board neither approved nor denied the church's plans, and then simply adjourned.
According to Church of the Intercessor's Reverend Craig Bates, the church has been "running back and forth" between the architectural review board and the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to comply with village codes, satisfy local residents, and obtain the correct permits and variances they need in order to do their construction.
"We were not picking a fight," Rev, Bates said. "We wanted to cooperate. The village is just passing us on from one meeting to another," he added. "All we are meeting is hostility. It's a silly process that could be resolved so simply."
In response, Malverne Mayor Anthony Panzarella, who serves on the architectural board, noted that the church had some items in their plans that were not shown in the board's copy and the board wanted more time to review the application. He added that some board members were upset to see that their application differed from the plans, which the church had.
"I think there is plenty of room for agreement," Mayor Panzarella said. "A lawsuit would be counterproductive."
Mayor Panzarella added that the matter could be resolved quickly by having the review board examine the application, to make sure it conformed with the church's plans.
However, according to Rev. Bates, the members of the architectural review board left the March 16th meeting without requesting the specific type of changes the church should do. He added that the church is willing to "do anything" to comply with the codes.
"They're inviting litigation," Ms. Detiere said. "If they don't want to give us the permits we'll get the court to do it."
Controversy involving the church is not new to Malverne. During the past year, a dispute between the church and about 20 nearby residents has simmered. The community surrounding the church, located on St. Thomas Place, has expressed fears about increased traffic and that new bright lights in the proposed parking lot would shine into their homes. Currently, due to lack of space, the Sunday school is located across the street from the church and their offices are a few blocks away.
The church received the go-ahead from the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 27, after they revised their applications for the project.
Pursuant to Village law, once the variances were approved by the Zoning Board in January, the church had 90 days to present their case to the architectural board so they could obtain permits for the construction, Ms. Detiere said. 60 days have already past and the church has applied for an extension. At press time, a response to their extension request had not been received, according to Ms. Detiere.
"I'm not sure we will be at the April 18 architectural board meeting," Ms. Detiere said. "We could be in court by then."
The church originally wanted to construct 23 new parking spaces in a lot which will be reached via Linder Place. Since this lot lies in a Residential "B" district, zoning board approval was required. In their January 27th decision, the board scaled back the proposal back to allow seven new spaces.
"In making this decision, we believe that we have balanced the church's rights to exist and expand in our residential zones against the legitimate concerns of local residents who fear a further reduction of greenspace and an over intensification of land use," zoning board officials wrote in their ruling.
In making their decision, the zoning board indicated that there was no way to completely eliminate the impact that increased traffic and parking would have in the area, but they felt that the solution they had rendered would not significantly intrude on the current neighborhood.
When the new parking lot is constructed, a ten-foot "buffer zone" between the homes and the church will be provided and maintained by the church, said Mayor Panzarella.
The church has experienced a significant increase in membership during the past two decades. For example, in 1988, the total membership hovered between 30 and 50, while today, 650 parishioners from Malverne and surrounding communities belong to the congregation, with an average of about 500 attending the four Sunday services.
2. It might be worth it to also post selected excerpts from the "Memorandum Decision" by the appellate court (as distinguished from articles) cited in Avildsen v. Prystay, 611 N.Y.S.2d 188, 189-190 (1st Dept. 1994), as follows:
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered March 19, 1993, June 21, 1993, October 5, 1993, and October 12, 1993, which, inter alia, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff father's complaint alleging defendant mother's breach of a compromise agreement entered into pursuant to Family Court Act $ 516 in settlement of a paternity proceeding; granted defendant judgment on her counterclaim for additional child support, transferred that counterclaim to the Family Court for further proceedings; and granted defendant judgment on her counterclaims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution, awarded her $225,000 for pain and suffering and loss of earnings and referred the matter of the reasonable value of her attorneys' fees to a special referee to hear and report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's contention that defendant's counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution are barred by res judicatta and the general release clause of the compromise agreement were previously raised and rejected by this Court ... Not expressly addressed in this Court's prior decisions was the question of defendant's claimed breach
of the compromise agreement, concerning which we agree with the trial court that there was no violation of the nonmolestation clause by reason of the "minor intrusion[s]" alleged. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in permitting defendant to amend her counterclaims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution to include the present litigation itself...
The trial court's finding that plaintiff commenced this action maliciously was properly based on his "filing and vigorously litigating this action based on four de minimis contacts by [defendant] and then after eight years, withdrawing his claim for money damages" ... Legal fees and damages for emotional distress are both recoverable under a cause of action for malicious prosecution ... Inasmuch as the counterclaim for malicious prosecution supports the award of damages for emotional distress, the counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is redundant, but we should nevertheless note our agreement with the trial court's finding that plaintiff's pursuit of this litigation for eight years, withholding of support payments, and eve-of-trial withdrawal of his main claim for return of support payments he did make under the compromise agreement demonstrate a "deliberate and malicious campaign of harassment or intimidation" [citations omitted].
On the issue of defendant's damages for pain and suffering, the $225,000 award was supported by expert testimony and other proof that defendant suffered from stress, anxiety, lack of sleep, phlebitis, hair loss and inability to work resulting in significant debts to subsidize her legal costs and support the child. It was not necessary for defendant to show special damage ... [remainder excerpts omitted].