The primary objective of government should always be
to protect its people.
Inherent in that overall function is also a need to
militate against preventable disputes that could otherwise turn ugly and
necessitate law enforcement attention. More specifically, it is in a local
government’s interest to seek to resolve preventable uncertainties about
property boundaries and property interests generally, to the extent within its
authority, before litigation becomes necessary. That’s why surveys, maps, deeds, and
plans are put on file. Work it out at the local level. Don’t waste money on
overfed litigators unless absolutely necessary.
So, these small-market Rockland County bureaucrats want
home rule? Fine. Yet with home rule comes responsibilities and obligations.
Throwing up one’s hands in response to any and every conflict cannot be an
option.
Piermont Mayor Nate Mitchell and the officials
working with him have utterly failed to protect Piermont residents. Mitchell
and his cohorts have yet again proven themselves to be small-minded petty
button-pushers afraid of their own respective shadows.
As many in Rockland County now know, the Village of
Piermont has been torn apart by controversy surrounding the actions of a
developer and highly-visible prominent resident named Philip Griffin. Mayor Nate Mitchell and the
Village of Piermont have rendered themselves beholden, and indeed virtually
enslaved, to Phil Griffin. For example, it has been suggested that Griffin
could, at any moment, pull the proverbial plug by excluding the public from
property surrounding Flywheel Park in Piermont, property said to be privately
owned by Griffin. Mitchell and his village government cohorts appear to accept
that possibility, as do many Village of Piermont residents. They appear to suck-up to Griffin at virtually every opportunity, and that bodes poorly for impartiality of small local government.
Following village governmental decisions made in
2023 and earlier - including decisions made during the tenure of former
Piermont Planning Board head Daniel (Bonesaw) Spitzer, brother of former “Client
9” Governor Eliot Spitzer - heavy machinery working on Griffin’s development just clear-cut
almost 6.5 acres of previously-forested land in the middle of the Village of Piermont, sending wildlife scattering and decimating the ecosystem.
The site is now an abscess of an eyesore, directly behind a sacred village war
memorial, looking as though the plot had been strip-mined and fracked at the
same time.
Cowardly Piermont Mayor Nate Mitchell has done
little if anything to stop this destruction in the heart of the 2,500-resident village over which he
feigns to preside.
However, in the past few days, Mayor Nate Mitchell’s ineptitude has descended to a new low, even for him. Among the adversely-affected neighbors are landowners Sergei Tazin and Irina Tazin, at 430 Piermont
Avenue, adjacent to the Phil Griffin excavation site. According to the minutes of
the Village of Piermont Board of Trustees meeting on October 20, 2026, the
Tazins have tenants at their location. The minutes recount the following bizarre spectacle:
“Mr. Phil Griffin had allegedly told Mr. Tazin’s tenants that the sidewalk owned by them would be demolished and had sent photographs of snakes to another tenant… [Mayor Nate Mitchell] asked Mr. Tazin whether he had contacted the Piermont Police Department regarding the alleged interactions between Mr. Griffin and the Tazins’ tenants. Mr. Tazin confirmed that he had.” [Bold-face emphasis added.]
“Mayor Mitchell explained that disputes concerning property lines and private property ownership fall outside the Village’s jurisdiction and would need to be addressed through civil legal proceedings… A discussion followed regarding the property boundaries, the survey, and the Planning Board’s approvals. Mayor Mitchell reiterated that the Planning Board had reviewed and approved the subdivision plot... Village Attorney Dennis Michaels explained that [m]unicipalities and their [b]oards do not have the legal authority to determine private property ownership or resolve property[-]line discrepancies. He stated that such disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the New York State Supreme Court through an action to determine title. He added that the same limitations apply to the Planning Board. Mr. Tazin stated that Building Inspector Charles Schaub had suggested that [Mr. Tazin] attend a Village Board meeting to discuss his concerns. Building Inspector Schaub clarified that he had advised Mr. Tazin that he could bring his concerns before the Board. [Schaub] explained that [Schaub’s] authority was limited to enforcing the site plan approved by the Planning Board… [Schaub] noted that the approved site plan indicated that Mr. Griffin could not encroach upon a particular portion of the disputed area; however, [Schaub] was unable to intervene in the remaining property dispute… Mayor Mitchell stated that the matter was a civil dispute and was not within the Village Board’s jurisdiction...” [Bold-face emphasis added.]
In any event, here’s the rub.
Feline Mayor Mitchell, Michaels, Schaub, and their
ineffectual local-yokel government cohorts cannot simply punt on every aspect
of this issue. Now, no one is suggesting that the Mayor or Village Board have
judicial authority to adjudicate competing claims of private property
ownership. But that limitation does not relieve Piermont of its separate governmental responsibilities to examine the accuracy of its own
land-use approvals, enforce applicable conditions imposed upon those approvals,
and address legitimate public-safety concerns arising from major development
activity which is right now literally uprooting the Village. Whether particular
duties are legally-enforceable depends upon the governing law and facts. As a
matter of responsible government, however, a purposefully-obtuse refusal to even further examine
those questions is a blatant abdication and dereliction of duty.
Yes, the situation sounds as though it may be ripe
for a homeowner civil action to quiet title, formally known as an “Action To Compel The
Determination Of A Claim To Real Property” under Article 15 of New York’s Real
Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL), particularly RPAPL §1501.
Depending upon the actual property interests and conduct involved, an aggrieved
landowner might also pursue ejectment under RPAPL §601 to recover possession; a
common-law trespass claim; or, for a qualifying encroaching structure, relief
under RPAPL §871. An Article 15 action can address competing claims to title or
other interests in real property, including asserted easements. A claimant
might pursue a private nuisance action if the neighbor’s conduct substantially
and unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of land, or can seek damages
for proven injury to real property. Possible remedies include a declaratory
judgment under CPLR §3001, establishing the respective rights of the parties,
and an injunction where the legal and equitable requirements therefor are
satisfied. These theories are not interchangeable. Their availability would
depend on the evidence. See Krakovski v. Stavros Associates, LLC,
173 A.D.3d 1146 (2d Dept. 2019) (addressing RPAPL §871, trespass, and nuisance
claims, with different outcomes for the different theories):
Yet the fact that the Tazins - and, where
appropriate, their tenants - may have several ways to skin this cat, by no
means entitles Piermont’s village government and its feckless feline Mayor to simply sit back and watch. Why? Because Mitchell and his sidekicks are now on written
notice that something may be rotten in the state of Denmark. The October 20,
2026 Piermont Village Board minutes create a written record of serious
questions concerning the Phil Griffin development, its relationship to 430
Piermont Avenue, at least one sidewalk safety issue, property boundaries, the survey or
surveys, and the Planning Board’s farkakte prior approval.
No, that October
20 written record does not ipso facto establish that Griffin’s 2023-approved
application contained erroneous property lines. It does, however, provide a
reason to ask whether the Village-approved plans and documents accurately reflected each of the
relevant boundaries and property interests. After all, according to the October 20 minutes, Building Inspector Schaub “noted that the approved site plan indicated that Mr.
Griffin could not encroach upon a particular portion of the disputed area”. That almost makes it sound like the “disputed area” was known to be “disputed” even before the site plan was drawn up.
