The Honora ble Ric har d K

. Ea ton, Unite d S ta te C ourt of Int ern at ional Tra de
, sitti ng by de signat ion. * 1 10- 824- cv C i t y of N ewburg h v. Sar na UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER

Ru li ng s b y su m m ar

y o r de r do no t h ave pr ece de nt ial e ff ect . Ci ta ti onto su m m ar y o r de r s f iled on or af ter J anuary 1 , 2007, is perm itted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate P rocedur e 32.1 and t his court ’s Local Rule 32.1.1 . When citing a sum mary or der in a d ocumentfiled with this cour t, a part

y must cite eit her th e Federal Append ix or an electr onic database (wit h the notati on “summ ary ord er”). A part y citing a sum mary or der m ust serve a copy of it onany party n ot rep resented by coun sel.

1 Ata st at edte r mof th e U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t o f Ap pe al s f or th e Se co nd Cir cu it , he ldatth e 2 Daniel Pat rick Moynihan United St ates Courthou se, 500 Pearl Street, i n the City of New York, 3 on the 21st of January, two t housand eleven. 4 5 PRE SEN T : 6 7 J OS É A. C AB R ANES , 8 REEN A R A GGI , 9 Cir cui t J udg es , 10 RI C HA R D K. E A T ON , 11 Ju dg e. * 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 13 C I TY O F N EWB UR GH , 14 15 Plainti ff-App ellant-C

ross-Appellee
, 16 17 v. No. 10-824 (L) 18 10-1006 (XAP) 19 20 21 M

ARK S A R NA , S ARNA E NT ER P R I S ES , I NC ., MT

. A I RY /A I R E E S T AT ES , 22 I NC ., N E W W I ND S O R D EV ELO PM EN T C OMP A NY , LL C, 23 24 De fe ndant s- Appelle es-Cr

o ss-A ppella nts , 25 26 D R AI NAGE D I S TRI CT #6

– MT

. A I R Y E STAT E S (T HE RES ERVE ), T OWN 27 O F N E W W I NDS OR , N E W Y O RK , 28 29 Defenda nt-App ellee

. 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x2 1 2 3 4 FOR P LA INTIFF-AP PELLANT5 CRO SS

- AP P ELLEE : M EA VE M. T OO HER (M ar c S. Ger s tm an, on the brief ), 6 La w Of fi ce o f M ar c S. Ger s tm an, Alb any, NY. 7 8 FOR DEF ENDANTS-APP ELL EES9 CROSS-APPELLANTS: J. B ENJ A MI N GAI L EY , J acob owi tz & G ub it s , L LP , 10 Wald en, NY. 1 1 12 F OR

DE F EN DAN T- AP P ELLEE : M I CHAEL D. B L YT HE , N ew Win ds or , N Y. 13 14 App eal f

r om a F ebruar

y 5, 201 0 ju dgm ent

of th e Unit ed S tat es Di s tr

ict Cou r t f or th e 15 So uthern D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( ColleenM cM aho n, Judge ). 16 17 UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, 18 AN D D ECREED th at p lai nt if f’ s app eal b e DISMI SSED insofar as it chall enges the District 19 Court’s dis miss al of the compla int aga inst defendant Town of New Windsor. It is fur ther ordered 20 th at the S ar na d ef end ant s ’ cr os s -a pp eal b e DISMI SSED in sofa r a s itch a ll en ge s the Di stri ctC ou rt’ s 21 de ni a l o f de fe nd a nt’ s mo ti on to d ism iss. In a lloth erre spe ct s, t he ju dgme nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s 22 AFFIRMED. 23 24 On Jun e 2 , 2 00 9, pl ain ti ff C ity o f Ne wb urgh (“ pl a in ti ff” ) fi le d a co mp la in t a ll eg in g v io la ti on s 25 of the Clea n Wa ter Act (“CW A”), 33 U.S .C. § 1251 et seq., a nd state-law tort claims for trespas s and 26 public nuisance aga inst defendants M ark Sarna e t al. (“the Sa rna defendants”) and Drainag e District 27 #6 –

M t. Air y Es tat es (T he Re s er

ve) , T ownof

New Win ds or , N ew Yo r k ( “T ownof New Win ds or ,” 28 and , t oge th er

with the S ar na d ef

end ant s , “d ef

end ant s ”) . P lai nt

if f s ought th e f ollo wing r eli ef

: ( 1) a 29 decla ratory judgment that the Sarna de fendants violated a nd continue to viola te the CW A; (2) an 30 injunction (a) prohibiting the pla nned expa nsion of the Mt. Airy Estates residential developme nt, (b) 31 com pel

ling the S ar na d ef

end ant s to achi eve c om pl

ian ce wi thth eir

St ate Po llu ti onDi s char

ge 32 Elimina tion System permit, and (c) compelling the Sarna de fendants to r emove their structur es fr om 33 plaintiff’s pr operty; (3) civil pena lties in the amount of the CW A’s statutor

y maximum ($37, 500 per 34 day) for each C WA violation; (4) dama ges of $5 million for the Sarna defenda nts’ alleged trespass on 35 pl ain ti ff

’s lan d; and(5 ) r eas on abl e co s ts andatt orney s ’ f ees

. 36 37 On February 5, 2010, a fter r eviewing voluminous submis sions by the parties, the District 38 Court denied pla intiff’s motion for a prelimina ry injunction and g ranted in part and denie d in part 39 def

end ant s ’ cr os s mo ti onto di s mi s s . T he D is tr ict Cou r t h eld
, int

er ali a , t ha t pl a in ti ff h a d n ot m etit s 40 heav

y bu r denines tab lis hi ng that it was ent it ledto th e extr aor di nar

y r eme dy o f apr eli mi nar

y 41 in ju nct

io n. I t f ur th er hel d that pl ain ti ff hadadeq uat ely p lead ed i ts clai ms agai ns t the S ar na3 1 defendants, but that its claims against the Town of Windsor would be dismis sed sua sponte fo r failu r e 2 to af

fo r d ad equ ate no ti ce t o d ef end ant pu r s uan t t o 3 3 U. S.C. § 13 65( b) (1 )( A) . P lai nt if f a pp eale d, 3 andth e Sarna d ef

end ant s cr os s -a pp eale d. 4 5 (i) 6 De fe nd a nt To wn of Win dso r a sser ts th a t w e a re wi tho ut j uri sdi ctio n to re vi ewpl a in ti ff’ s 7 appea l insofar as it appeals the Distr ict Court’s dismis sal of the complaint ag ainst the Town of 8 Windsor, because pla intiff did not s pecify in i ts not ice of appe al that it wished to appe al that portion 9 of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s Dec is io n an d O r der . T he n ot ice o f a pp eal f

ile d b y pl ain ti ff

onM ar ch 5 , 20 10 10 s tat es init s ent

ir et y: 11 12 No ti ce is her eby giv en that

th e Cit y of Newbu rgh, Pl ain ti ff

inth e abo ve 13 nam ed c as e, h er eby app eals to th e Unit ed S tat es Cou r t o f A pp eals fo r th e 14 Seco ndCir cui t f r om th e De cis io n an d O r der Gr ant in g inPa r t an d D eny

in g 15 inPa r t D ef end ant s ' M ot

io n t o D is mi s s andDenying P lai nt if f’ s M ot io n f or a 16 Preliminary Injunction, filed on the 5th day of February, 2010, and subject to 17 the Order Denying Plaintiff's Mot ion for Reconsideration and or 18 Reargum ent ent er ed i n thi s act

io n o n the 2 5th d ay of

Fe bruar y, 2 010

. 19 Specific ally , plaintiff appea ls purs uant to 28 U.S.C . § 1292(a )(l), that port

ion 20 of

th e De cis io n an d O r der

denying pl ain ti ff

's mo ti onfo r

a pr eli mi nar

y 21 in ju nct io n. (e mp has is s up pl

ied ). 22 23 Un der

th e cir cum s tan ces , we agr ee wi thth e T ownof Win ds or

. See Fe d. R. Ap p. P. 3( c) (1 )( B ) ( “T he 24 no ti ce o f a pp eal m us t . . . d es ign ate th e ju dgm ent , o r der , o r par t ther eof

bei ng a pp eale d .

. . . ”) ; see 25 also New Phone Co. v. City o f New York , 498 F.3d 127, 13 0 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[O]ur juris diction is limited 26 by the w or di ng o f the n ot ice.

. . . [W] e do no t h ave the au th or it y t o wai ve the j ur is di ct io nal 27 r equ

ir eme nt s of

[Rule 3 (c)] .”) . P lai nt

if f’ s app eal i s di s mi s s ed i ns of ar as it app eals th e di s mi s s al o f the 28 com pl ain t ag ain s t the T ownof Win ds or

. 29 30 (ii) 31 The Sarna defenda nts cros s-appealed the District Court’s denial of defendants’ motion to 32 di smi ss on the ba sis t ha t th e C ity C ou nc ilof t he C ity o f Ne wb urgh fa il ed to a uth ori ze pl a in ti ff’ s 33 lit

igat io n. Pl ain ti ff

clai ms this cr os s -a pp eal s ho ul d b e di s mi s s ed as an i mp r op er in te rlo cut or

y app eal. 34 We ar e pe r s uad ed b y pl ain ti ff ’s clai m. 35 36 T he f

ede r al co ur ts do no t allo w f or in te rlo cut or

y app eals exce pt

inlimit ed c ir cum s tan ces

. 37 Here, defenda nts did not s eek c ertification from the Dis trict Court permitt ing them to pursue an 38 in te rlo cut or

y app eal p ur s uan t t o 2 8 U. S.C. § 12 92( b)

. See Lynch v. City of New York , 58 9 F .3d94, 984 1 n. 1 (

2dCir . 20 09) (d eny

in g r evi ew o f amo ti onto di s mi s s onan i nt erlo cut or y app eal o f adenial

of a 2 pr eli mi nar

y in ju nct io n) . Al th ough i nt erlo cut or y r evi ew o f the d eni al o f apr eli mi nar y in ju nct io n m ay 3 ext endto all

mat te r s “in extr

icab ly b ou ndup with the p r eli mi nar y in ju nct io n, ” Lamar

Adver . o f Pen n, 4 LL C v. Town of Orchard Park , 3 56 F.3 d 3 65 , 3 71 (2 d C ir. 20 04 ) (i nte rna l q uo ta ti on ma rks a nd bra ck et s 5 om it te d) , the ques ti onof whe th er th e Cit y Cou ncil au th or

izedpl ain ti ff

’s lit igat io n d oes no t f

all 6 within this category. A mong other things, even if we w ere to determine that the C ity Counc il did 7 not satis fy the technic al requirements to authorize the litiga tion in the firs t instance, it is obvious that 8 “[t]he City, through its Counci l, plainl y supports this action, . . . wishes it to proceed[,] . . . [and 9 would

] v ot e t o r ef

ile it im mediat ely. ” Cit

y o f N ew bur gh v. Sarn a , 69 0 F . Supp . 2d136 , 14 6 ( S.D .N .Y. 10 20 10 ). Ac co rdi ng ly , t he Sa rna de fe nd a nts’ cr oss-a pp ea l re ga rdi ng the C ity C ou nc il ’s a uth ori za ti on is 11 no t “ nec es s ary t o en s ur e me ani ngf ul r evi ew” o f the i s s ue o f the p r eli mi nar y in ju nct io n. Sw int v

. 12 Chambe rs

Cnty . Co mm’n, 514 U.S. 35 , 50-51 (1995). Howe ver, even i f we did hav e jurisdiction over 13 the Sa rna de fe nd a nt’ s cr oss a pp ea l, we wo ul d a ffi rm th e r el ev a nt p ortio n o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt’ s 14 Dec is io n an d O r der fo r s ub s tan ti ally the r eas on s s tat ed b y the D is tr ict Cou r t. 15 16 (iii) 17 Af

te r con s id er in g pl ain ti ff

’s other argum ent s infull, we f

in d themto be w

itho ut mer it . T he 18 Distr

ict Court’s Decision and Order was comprehensive and w ell-reasoned. Ac cordingly, w e affirm 19 th at D ecis io n an d O r der fo r s ub s tan ti ally the r eas on s s tat ed ther ein

. 20 21 CONCLUSI ON 22 T o s um mar ize: 23 (1 ) Pl ain ti ff’ s a pp ea l i s DISMI SSED insofar as it chall enges the District Court’s dismis sal of 24 th e co mp lai nt agai ns t d ef

end ant T ownof Win ds or

. 25 (2 ) The Sa rna de fe nd a nts’ cr oss-a pp ea l i s DISMI SSED insofar as it chall enges the District 26 Cou r t’ s denial of def end ant s ’ m ot

io n t o dis mi s s

. 27 (3 ) In a lloth erre spe ct s, t he ju dg me nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AFFIRMED. 28 29

30

31 FOR THE C OU R

T 32 Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court 3 3