On May 30 the Times-Herald-Record published an article titled, “Warwick Pub’s Relocation Going Nowhere,” regarding the status of the litigation initiated by certain neighbors regarding the relocation of Yesterday’s restaurant from Main St. to Elm St. in the Village of Warwick. The article stated that the neighbors’ appeal had been upheld. That statement is factually incorrect and misleading.
The relevant facts regarding the status of the litigation are as follows:
The neighbors initiated an Article 78 action in Orange County Supreme Court that was dismissed in its entirety. After the Article 78 action was dismissed the neighbors filed a notice of appeal that provided them six months to perfect their appeal.
Thereafter, well after a building permit had been issued and work on the site had commenced, the neighbors filed a motion in the appellate court seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) pending consideration of a permanent injunction to halt construction based upon what they claimed was a likelihood of success that their appeal when perfected would be granted.
The motion for TRO was heard by an appellate court judge who denied the request for the TRO pending the appellate court hearing the motion for the permanent injunction pending the appeal. At the hearing on the TRO, after the Judge refused the request, my counsel made an offer to meet with the neighbors (as I have throughout) to see if there was anything we could do to address their concerns.
I have attempted to meet most of those requests. I have committed to plant additional screening around the facility. I also agreed to cease service outdoors at 9 p.m., to monitor noise emanating from the outside service area and if the noise was deemed excessive to take corrective actions as provided on the approved site plan.
Thereafter, the court denied in its entirety the motion for a permanent injunction. I did not alert the media or crow about this victory since I continue to be interested in doing what I can do to satisfy the concerns of many neighbors as possible.
On the last day prior to the expiration of the sixth month timeframe to perfect that appeal, the neighbors perfected their appeal, despite the fact that they lost the motion for TRO and preliminary injunctions.
We proceeded, together with the attorney for the Planning Board and Village, as well as the attorney for the property owner to submit our opposition to the appeal. In doing so we also submitted, in addition to our reply, a motion to dismiss the proceedings as frivolous and for the sole purpose of frustrating Yesterdays’ ability to complete the project.
It is this one discreet motion that the appellate court dismissed. The appellate court has not heard the appeal, and has in no way shape or form upheld the appeal. The status of the appeal is that the appellate court will schedule an oral argument and thereafter issue a determination that we are confident will uphold the correct decision of Orange County Supreme Court by Judge Slobod.
A prior article referred to my proposal as including a “Beer Garden” and it was not until much later that I was interviewed to disclose the application on file with the Village nowhere mentioned any outdoor bar or beer garden and that it was never my intention to have one.
In understanding that I am doing something new and while I feel I am making a substantial positive investment in the community I love, others may have a different opinion about my plans. Unfortunately, news articles which contain misleading information only help to highlight differences, stir animosity, and instead of educating the public on the facts so each individual can make an informed decision on the merits of this project.
While the fate of Yesterdays certainly may seem like small potatoes in light of all the issues before us today, it is not small potatoes to me, it is my life work.