Future of the dormant government center far from resolved
GOSHEN – A state judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to stop the revitalization and expansion of the Orange County Government Center in Goshen.
County Executive Steven Neuhaus is cautiously optimistic, since attorney
Michael Sussman has put the county on notice that he tends to appeal the
10-page decision.
“The will of the people, which is the legislature, is to move forward on this renovation project and we believe, one way or another, no matter how much time Mr. Sussman likes to delay and how much money he likes to waste on frivolous lawsuits, we believe at the end of the day, the county will be victorious and successful and continue to move forward,” Neuhaus said.
County Legislature Chairman Stephen Brescia agreed.
“I think it was a wasteful lawful lawsuit to begin with,” Brescia said. “They talk about saving the taxpayers’ money, but they are definitely costing the taxpayers’ money with this lawsuit.”
Sussman could not be reached for comment on Monday but apparently plans to respond during a news conference this morning.
The lawsuit had four basic contentions, all of which were thrown out by
Supreme Court Justice Christopher Cahill. The suit maintained the county refused to engage in “substantive negotiations” with a third party – non-party Gene Kaufman, “coupled with defendants’ collusion with others who favored the construction of a new government center, amounted to a substantial waste of public resources, since Kaufman offered to buy the building for $5 million and build a new government center at a cost of $50 million.
The suit also contended the county’s state environmental quality review long form “is dishonest and fraudulent since it does not accurately assess the actual project being constructed,” that the county exceeded its conduct through the continued implementation of the current design “which exceeds the scope of legislative approve;” and that the excess waste would occur by the county’s acceptance of either of two demolition bids it received.
Justice Cahill, though, disagreed. “In this court’s view, a fair reading of all of these allegations leads to the conclusion that they are simply conclusory statements of misrepresentations, conspiracy, collusion and malfeasance’ insufficient to demonstrate the requisite fraud, collusion or malfeasance in either the voting or resolutions adopted by the legislature or in the actions taken by defendant Neuhaus to sustain an action under General Municipal Law Section 51,” the judge wrote. “While not determinative, not one statute, charter, code or regulation is alleged to have been violated. “
