to the village with regard to a one point one acre parcel of land this court in a prior appeal held that that resolution constituted a contract within the meaning of the gentleman a simple law and we mandate the matter back to the district board for further determinations the district court then how that that two thousand and five resolution was void under the gentleman a civil law initially the district court held as a matter of law that the contract of two thousand and five resolution was void because it was entered into  willfully we believe that that's an error first of all this court has consistently held that the issue whether something is will fall within a context of a statute is an issue fact  the record here clearly does not establish that the entering into the two thousand and five resolution was a willful violation of the gentleman his civil law and first of all i would point to the fact that the district court originally held that the two thousand and five resolution was not a contract and not governed by such an ada one of the gentlemen is a law where we're beyond that i understand it but then it's going to the question of willful if a court  have held that willful requires a knowing or reckless disregard of that the actions violate a law but doesn't it perhaps differ whether willful is used in a criminal context or in a civil context is it it's sprinklered as hell but it still requires more than just undertaking the act knowing that you're undertaking that it requires some level of either knowing that you violated the law or you showed a reckless disregard that you're violating a law it's find that the parties executed it with full knowledge of the broker they are the brokers interest that that that not this is certainly the lawfulness or non lawfulness of it but the relative interests of the parties i don't believe that held in new york state that still something is more than just one firing the act it because it was then willful really would have no meaning they would just say any contract and just in to file in in violation of gentle intel was indeed entering into a contract that he knew that involve the conveyance of property that he knew would require approval of the board we have i don't believe that he was in a contract in the sense of the word that there was a conveyance it was a resolution declining an offer dedication by a third party he recused himself again indicating that he and of an interest that there was a he knew he had an interest in the ultimate because why isn't that enough to be willful because it doesn't show that he understood that his actions violated the law or have any reason to in fact in two thousand and seven they didn't even think that it was a contract on the general minister that only came up after the fact when this litigation started he recused himself the district court finally didn't didn't believe it was a contract this court  the but the argument was that it was void then before this court in this court cannot make that determination at the time they did remained back district court this was just a resolution passed by have villas trustees led benefited village the head was not a direct contract between the parties but the suggestion arguably the appearance is that he was getting this piece of property substantially below the market property he had a few ownership if the two thousand and five contract was void that was in the contract for the sale the property or anything like that that was with regard to accepting an offer of dedication so he was a fee owner of the property and if the two thousand and five was voided then they would have to accept the offer of dedication so he always was the feelin or up until two thousand and seven when they passed the offer dedication to let his property interests  we were to agree with you about that what remedy would he be seeking now i mean i understand he's saying that he didn't get notice of the two thousand and seven resolution and because he was the fee owner he deserved that  arguing that the two thousand and seven resolution should be undone and a hearing held in the village with noticed him that's correct but again i still don't believe that they've met but willful i think willful is an issue of fact th consistently held that it's an issue of fact as to whether the actions are willful i don't think the record goes anywhere close to a set saying that a rational jury cannot find that his actions were not so i believe the district court erred may please the court my name is steven leventhal i represent the incorporated village of martin town good morning if i may i would like to begin where mr murray ended on the language of the statute language  four the language of eight o five this statute has a very clear statutory scheme it has one section that deals with civil no if occasion that's four and a separate section that deals with criminal liability it zero five the standard for civil no if occasion is the willful entering into of a contract that is prohibited by the statute the will entering into of a contract as compared with section eight o five which imposes criminal liability for a knowing and willful violation of the law comparing and contrasting those two sections alone it's clear that knowledge of the law is not a prerequisite to civil nullification under eight zero four which only calls for the willful making of the contract this logic this distinction between civil nullification and criminal liability echoes the logic of the united states supreme court in u s versus brian and furthermore judge chin in response to your question what is meant by wilfulness in this context that question was answered by the new york state comptroller in the opinion cited on page seventeen of our brief the comptroller said that that what facts that we have knowledge of here that implicates this that makes it knowing he had knowledge of the fact that he was a trustee of the village he had knowledge of the fact that he had an interest in the contract  and he had knowledge of the existence of the contract those are all three those are the three elements of an ada one violation account you will agree that the characterization of the resolution as a contract wasn't obvious in that the district court first found that it was in a contract and doesn't look like a contract to me it had those implications and you know we're past that now or having been construed in that fashion but will respectfully it was obvious to that was obvious to the village at the time that i represented the village and in fact contrary to mr murray's arguments a moment ago there was a discussion at the meeting in the minutes on the record when the two thousand and seven resolution was adopted discussing the fact that was a prohibited contract and that mr intel's recusal was insufficient to cure the violation if he had resigned from the board would that have been sufficient absolutely yes and could you explain to me i've been puzzled by the fact that the dedication had been on the books in the file since one nine hundred seventy two and the village had done nothing to accept it until this series of events occurred did the village have no obligation to maintain it to respond innit timely way is it entitle to just keep it on the books as an offer indefinitely well in fact the  second department the new york state supreme court second department recently answered that question in the underhill case cited in our brief it said the second department said the at that a lapse of time does not invalidate an offer in a related case for all interested parties would include all the landowners the twenty five years what twenty seven bought in reliance that is correct that is correct and that is the import of the court of appeals decision so and what is wrong in your view with the argument that mr and tel had enough of a property right having a b the feet owner to have some kind of due process rights to notice before the village took on the two thousand and seven action that a fair position well that's not a fair position first because mr and tell stepped into the shoes of for real homes the original developer the developer had due process at the time of the original planning board decision approving the subdivision a little artificial he wasn't even on the scene when the original plan was approved and he had acquired a at least a facially valid property interest mr anto certainly cannot plead ignorance of what occurred at the time of the subdivision approval he was informed in writing by the village attorney but again why in two thousand and seven would it not have been more consistent with due process to give notice of the anticipated action well it had in the land records mr  's property interest was in now goes to the property interest of the untenured teacher in board of or agency versus roth in that case the united states supreme court said that a teacher who has no tenure does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in his continued employment similarly mr and tell who bought the property knowing that it was subject to an irrevocable offer of dedication to the village did not have a property interest in small acres that was constitutionally protected against the village accepting that offer there was no requirement in the new york village law no difference between land holdings and the land record employment is that right well the only difference i would say is that mr intel had greater notice than the teacher in roff he had not only actual notice from the village attorney prior to purchasing the property but he also had constructive notice because the deed restriction was set forth on the map filed in the county i'm asking about the two thousand and seven did he have actual notice of the resolution that was proposed and then an act in two thousand and seven no he did not the i'd like to return if i can for a moment to this the willfulness argument i think it's it's instructive to point out that the definitional section of the statute eight hundred subsection three says that an officer or employee of the municipality is deemed to have an interest in the contracts of his or her family members his or her business associates his or her employer so you can have a contract with the municipality that violates a no warrant that the municipal officer is not a party to it can have been entered into without that officers participation and without that officers knowledge i'd like to return for a minute just each of the two thousand and seven and the procedural due process and questions i was just asking so he did not have actual notice of the two thousand and seven action by the village yet was the on the land records he was the fee owner of the property why wouldn't it be more consistent with his procedural due process rights to give him some notice and a chance to be heard before the village took this action well the land property records not only included the deed into mr intel as as as your honor notes it also had a recorded irrevocable offer of dedication that his ownership was subject to he did not have an expectation a constitutionally protected protected expectation of continuing to own that property in the event that the village exercised its right to accept the offer of dedication because of the hundred seventy two record ation of the dedication on the plat which had been an accepted in then declined leaving him possibly to outward appearances the sole interest holder in the the property village did not give him any notice and he had no rights to any notice it had been declined in by a contract that was void ab initio and also his rights mr intel's property rights are defined by new york law prejudiced the village in any way to give him rights and to have him and to have him be heard it would not have prejudiced the village but mr and tells when the two thousand and seven resolutions is that done in a public proceeding how is that yes it's done at a publicly noticed public meeting on the record in public with the agenda published ahead of time with the agenda published ahead of time so he would have had at least constructive notice through there yes yes and the point there would be just like to make is that the constitution of the united states of course does not create property rights it protects property rights property rights are created by state law the state law that applies here is the new york village law article seven of the new york village law which governs subdivisions and creates this right on the part of the municipality to require a developer to offer dedication up to ten percent of the property included in the subdivision it provides for the offer of dedication it does not provide any for any notice to the offer or in the event the offer is accepted and of course traditional notions of contract law indicate that an offer that an agreement is made by an offer and an acceptance and and that is what occurred here when the village filed the offer was on the books for over thirty years without any acceptance by the village that's christian no to the contract law might lead you to a different place well the village attorney however explicitly in  writing in a letter that's in the record and cited in our brief informed mr until prior to his purchase of the property that it was subject to village accepting the offer of dedication which would result in  in in the the ownership of the property being vested in the village and  i'm sorry i've lost the other part but did mr intel confer a benefit on the village then having cleaned up the land at one point one acres cleaned it up on screen planting and remove the trash and and so on does he have a claim against the village for having provided that service is you have a civil claim for money damages i would say not he he benefited from that himself he enhanced his own backyard that was the effect of that of that work and furthermore the the cases of it have indicated that you don't have equitable claims against a municipality that would defeat it prohibit against a contract with the municipality a prohibited contract that was justice alito those decision on the third circuit arising out of the virgin islands so really equitable principles don't don't apply here this is governed by statute thank you thank you we are them i just want to address one of the comments by mr leventhal that the agenda was published before hand for there's nothing in the record that indicates that that is the case we may have a public notice a public meeting but i don't believe they publish the actual agenda of that meeting in any case the record has absolutely if you can ignore the context they did a title search right before they did the two thousand and seven resolution that showed that he was the owner of the property as of record there was a  year before between the two mr rangel and the current mer beckerman and that this was done after knowing exactly what his interest was not telling him and then doing it at a board meeting and taking away his one point one acre after the two thousand and five and had been passed and he had screened the property and put money in to protect it there's no reason why notice could not have been given to mr intel prior to the two thousand and seven meeting and there is good his sumption as to why notice wasn't given at that time given the relationship between the parties also with regard to w conditions that were attached to it that he agreed not to develop it and to have have it screened but he was even a party to a quote contract none of his relatives were party to a contract this was never seen as a contract until this litigation started interest and recuse himself that's eight zero nine that is what the district court originally thought that this resolution was that is how he behaved as if it was an honor or a land use resolution under eight or nine there was nothing willful about his conduct and again there's a lot of stuff on long island goes back and forth about political shenanigans quite frankly and the people that are in a position to sort the stuff out is a jury they hears all the facts hears all the witnesses sees the demeanor this court is originally has held that it's a question of fact they can make a determination as to if mr intel was acting willfully in this context i think that an appropriate way of having this matter