Appellate Court Allows Hampshire’s $58 Million Lawsuit Against the Village of Mamaroneck to Proceed
The New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, rejected three separate efforts by the Village of Mamaroneck to dismiss a $58 million lawsuit brought by Hampshire Recreation, LLC challenging the Village’s handling of Hampshire’s proposed residential development. All three decisions were issued September 2.
The rulings allow Hampshire’s claims to proceed, as well as compel the Village to turn over a trove of internal communications and other documents that it claimed were privileged.
Hampshire Recreation acquired the Hampshire Country Club property in 2010. The property was primarily zoned for residential development under Village zoning.
In 2015, Hampshire proposed a residential development of about 105 homes consistent with this zoning. Over the next five years, the Village required the company to prepare 16 different alternative plans for residential development while the Planning Board conducted its environmental and land-use review. In 2020, the Board rejected every development plan and declined to issue the approvals required for any residential development to proceed.
Hampshire sued the Village, alleging, among other things, that members of the Planning Board acted in bad faith and were predetermined to remove any right to residential development, thereby depriving Hampshire of the reasonable use and value of its residentially zoned property. Hampshire has cited sworn testimony and internal communications involving a Planning Board member as evidence supporting its claims. Hampshire contends that this evidence raises serious questions about whether its applications received the fair and impartial review required by law.
The Village denies those allegations but refused to turn over various internal communications between board members, claiming they were privileged.
The Village pursued three separate appellate challenges. First, it sought dismissal of Hampshire’s case. The Appellate Division declined to terminate the litigation, allowing Hampshire’s claims to proceed in the trial court. The court concluded that the record provided sufficient grounds to continue the case.
The Village then argued that additional facts warranted reconsideration of the earlier ruling. The Appellate Division again declined to dismiss the case and left intact the determination that Hampshire’s claims should proceed.
In the third matter, the Village sought to prevent discovery of disputed internal records. The Appellate Division rejected that effort, allowing Hampshire to continue seeking materials that may provide additional information on the Planning Board’s deliberations and decision-making.
The case now returns to the trial court, where discovery and other pretrial proceedings will continue.