Piermont's Feline Mayor Nate Mitchell Abdicates His Governmental Function.

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.]

 
Photographs… of snakes… and allegations serious enough to prompt police involvement.
 
Assuming that Mr. Tazin’s allegations are accurate, one could scarcely imagine a more thuglike, hillbilly manner of conducting business or communicating with one’s neighbors. It sounds like what someone in the construction industry would do… In Jersey.
 
Moreover, one could scarcely imagine a more passive way for a village government to respond to a dispute between residents, once made aware of it, than to brusquely and summarily dump the matter as exclusively a court and police problem. Indeed, I used to work with a genius lawyer in Manhattan back in the 1990s. Yesterday I showed him the Piermont Village Board of Trustees minutes of October 20, 2026. His simple response was, “Why do they meet?”
 
It gets even worse.
 
What appears to be at the core of the problem between Griffin, the Tazins, and the Tazin tenants, is a property-line dispute, involving a sidewalk. One would think that it would be in a village’s interest to protect the safety of residents, whether tenants or enfeoffed landowners. One would think that sidewalks pose a safety issue. Without a safe pedestrian route, residents might end up walking in a roadway where cars drive, or across someone else’s property, potentially creating trespass disputes and perhaps hazards even worse than that.
 
Therefore, let’s examine how the feline Mayor himself, Nate Mitchell, addressed the Tazins and the community. From the October 20 Village Board of Trustees minutes:
 

“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.]

 
Wait a minute... “Disputed area”?...

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):

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter//3dseries/2026/2026_00123.htm

 

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.

 

Depending upon the existence, nature, and materiality of any error, one or more boundary-line defects could raise serious questions about the basis upon which the Griffin application was approved. Whether a failure to properly designate property boundaries could support reconsideration, enforcement action, judicial challenge, or ultimate overthrow, obviously requires further analysis beyond merely a perfunctory pass. In other words, in a worst-case scenario for Phil Griffin but a best-case scenario for his Piermont neighbors, one or more material inaccuracies or other defects in the application could possibly render the entire application void and invalid. The clear-cutting of those 6.5 acres would then come to look like an even more horrible mistake than it already looks. 
 
Sure, feline Mayor Mitchell is not a New York Supreme Court Justice. Thank God for that. Yet Mitchell is the Mayor of Piermont. Whether Mitchell likes it or not, he inherited the aftermath of decisions made during the reprobate “tenures” of former Planning Board head Dan Spitzer and ex-Garmento Mayor Bruce Tucker. No, Nate Mitchell cannot personally adjudicate title. He cannot simply unwind a prior Planning Board approval by fiat. But Nate Mitchell can inquire whether the Village has complied with its own rules, and whether any site plan approval is being tracked and followed. He can further explore what lawful corrective action is available to Piermont village government. The October 20 record puts the Village on written notice of a dispute serious enough to warrant all of those questions.
 
Moreover, as current Mayor of Piermont, Nate Mitchell also has a public responsibility to take pedestrian safety concerns seriously, including concerns affecting Sergei Tazin, Irina Tazin, their tenants, and anyone else who might be forced into the road if a usable sidewalk near 430 Piermont Avenue is demolished without a safe alternative. For that matter, the Village itself should conclusively establish every Piermont sidewalk’s ownership and legal status, determine what work has been approved or undertaken thereupon as needed, and assess what Village officials may lawfully do with respect to each Piermont sidewalk. It is Nate Mitchell’s village to run. At least until the next election.
 
Yet on October 20, 2026, feline Mayor Mitchell gave everyone the clear indication that he regarded the controversy as someone else’s problem – effectively disavowing his own neighbors and his own constituents thereby. That is a wholly-inadequate answer to questions about the Village’s own approval processes, compliance with approved plans, and pedestrian safety. Mitchell and his compadres effectively told the Tazins and their tenants to go suck eggs - a callous and inexcusable “Not my department”.
 
While this sort of ineffectual passivity is what we have become accustomed to hearing from Piermont Mayor Mitchell, it is decidedly unacceptable in a public official charged with protecting a community. The Mitchell message to the Tazins and their tenants was, “You can either go litigate in New City, or else get used to walking in the road”.
 
I’d expect more personal responsibility taken by a feral cat in my backyard.