1872 contract sparks federal case
WARWICK Three deeds, an 1899 opinion letter and a favorable Article 78 decision: Three pieces of a legal puzzle started 140 years ago.
A contract from 1872 rarely sparks a modern day federal case but that is what happened when the Village of Warwick shut off water service to 21 Hathorn Road and 12 County Route 1A for nonpayment of a $7,807.20 water bill in June 2009.
Paul Manza and Domar Homestead, LLC, owners of the properties, brought suit against the village and won free water in a special administrative law proceeding against any governmental body, agency or officer in New York called an Article 78 proceeding.
Manza continues to pursue his case at the federal level because of what he says were violations of his constitutional right to due process from the village.
In other words, Manza asserts that the village ought not to have cut off his water in the first place and that what the village did demonstrates a village government overstepping its bounds and violating the constitutional guarantee of due process under the law.
Although the federal circuit court of appeals upheld part of a lower courts ruling dismissing one of Manzas constitutional claims, the court also held that it has not been established as a matter of law that Manza was afforded procedural due process as required by the Constitution.
Free water in perpetuity What is clear is the 1899 opinion letter from the villages then attorney that concluded that right to free water was not reserved for individual use, but rather for the property to run with the land, states the Article 78 decision.
That decision ruled that the free water deal was made in perpetuity in exchange for land on which the village erected the municipal water system. The decision, filed with the county clerk in July 2010, also cited three deeds from 1872, 1891 and 1908 between the village and Mrs. Welling and Sanford, two dairy farmers and their heirs.
Village attorney Michael Meth said that neither he nor Mayor Michael Newhard could comment on any matter in litigation. Both are named in the lawsuit that continues because Manza appealed the lower courts ruling dismissing his case.
Although the circuit court of appeals affirmed part of that decision, the judges sent the case back to the federal court for the village to establish that it afforded Manza his procedural due process rights under the Constitution.
Water is back on Were pretty happy about it because its not easy to prove a procedural due process violation against the government, Steven Spiegel, the attorney representing Manza and Domar Homestead, said in a telephone interview.
We won the state court lawsuit and got the water turned back on and brought a proceeding in federal court because constitutional claims are separate from Article 78 claims, he said.
With the free water issue resolved, at issue now will be whether the village afforded Manza sufficient notice, opportunity to be heard and other due process prior to terminating his water service.
Next steps include legal arguments about procedural notice and both sides delving into the procedure that the village followed before cutting off water service.
- Birgit Bogler