Preview
FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
___________________________________________
THOUSAND ISLANDS LAND TRUST, INC.,
Plaintiff,
-against- Index No.:
RON CLAPP and CARLETON VILLA, LLC,
Defendants.
___________________________________________
ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF THOUSAND ISLANDS LAND TRUST,
INC.’S MOTION TO REARGUE ITS PRIOR MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
PHILLIP A. OSWALD, ESQ., pursuant to CPLR 2106, affirms the following to
be true under the penalties of perjury:
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the State of New York
with the law firm of Rupp Pfalzgraf LLC, attorneys for Plaintiff, Thousand Islands Land Trust,
Inc. (“Plaintiff”). I have worked on this matter extensively, and, therefore, I fully am familiar
with the procedural and factual history stated herein.
2. This affirmation is being submitted in support of Plaintiff’s motion
pursuant to N.Y. CPLR to reargue its prior motion for a temporary restraining order and
ultimately a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants Ron Clapp and Carleton Villa, LLC
(“Defendants”) from pursuing any further development work on the Defendants’ property (the
“Villa Property”) because that ongoing work is violating and will continue to violate both a
Conservation Easement (the “Easement”) and a Declaration of Restrictions (the “Declaration”).
1 of 9
FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
3. Plaintiff’s papers in support of its motion for a TRO were served on
Defendants’ counsel on April 10, 2024, and Defendants thereby have notice of this application.
4. On April 11, 2024, this Court issued a signed OTSC that struck the
language requesting a TRO, thereby denying that part of Plaintiff’s motion.
5. Respectfully, this part of Plaintiff’s motion should have been granted
because Defendants’ proposed development—for which they have just started work—is violating
and will continue to violate both the Easement and the Declaration, thereby causing irreparable
injury to the Villa Property and Carleton Island as a whole. On the other hand, Defendants will
suffer no hardship from granting this motion because the Villa Property has been vacant and
unused for decades, Defendants are not operating a business there, and Defendants do not even
have the necessary permits or approvals yet to begin the work to develop that property for their
business.
6. In addition to this affirmation, Plaintiff is also submitting all other papers
filed in connection with its initial motion, which papers are incorporated by reference pursuant to
N.Y. CPLR 2214(c). Specifically, the following papers are being incorporated by reference to
their document number (“Doc.”): 10 (Proposed Order to Show Cause), 11 (Attorney
Affirmation), 12 (Verified Complaint), 13 (Marked Site Plan), 14 (Affidavit of Spencer Busler in
Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Busler Affidavit” or “Busler Aff.”),
duly sworn on April 10, 2024), 15 (Deed of Easement), 16 (Carleton Island Map), 17 (Town’s
Comprehensive Plan), 18 (State Conservation Plan), 19 (Declaration of Restrictions), 20 (Notice
of Public Hearing), 21 (Application Materials), 22 (GIS Map of the Villa Property), 23 (Drone
2 of 9
FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
Map taken on April 9, 2024), 24 (Photographs taken on April 9, 2024), 25 (Defendants’ Site
Plan), 26 (TILTs written notice dated April 5, 2024), 27 (Memorandum of Law in Support), 30
(Defendants’ letter requesting to be heard), and 31 (signed Order to Show Cause entered by the
Court).
7. Generally, to succeed on a motion to reargue under CPLR 2221(d), the
movant must identify specific facts that were overlooked or principles of law which were
misapplied by the court. E.g., Frenchman v. Lynch, 97 A. D.3d 632, 633, 948 N.Y.S.2d 396 (2d
Dept. 2012). Here, the specific fact that was, respectfully, overlooked was that the development
work (and the damage caused by it) has started and is ongoing at this time, beginning this past
Tuesday, April 9, 2024 (Doc. 14 ¶¶ 42-45; Doc. 24). The fact that this work is ongoing meets
the irreparable-injury element under the well-settled law discussed below in paragraph 11.
Further, the Villa Property is not owned by Defendants free and clear of any interest held by
Plaintiff, but, instead, Plaintiff holds significant and substantial interests and rights in that
property to ensure that it is conserved and protected (Doc. 14 ¶¶ 11-13, 18, 19; Doc. Nos. 15,
19).
8. A full and complete narrative of the factual background is provided in the
Busler Affidavit and in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint.
9. Plaintiff commenced this action on April 10, 2024 by filing a Verified
Complaint. On that same day, Plaintiff filed a motion by way of order to show cause (“OTSC”)
seeking a TRO and ultimately a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from pursuing any
further work on the Villa Property, including, but not limited to, excavation, land clearing,
3 of 9
FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
vegetation removal, erection of structures, foundation work, paving, and any other work in
furtherance of Defendants’ development.
10. Plaintiff made this motion because its staff discovered that on April 9,
2024, Defendant had started development work. Specifically, the work that begun this past
Tuesday was land-clearing with the use of a skid steer and excavator.
11. The law is beyond well settled that ongoing (or even threatened) damage
to property is sufficient to meet the irreparable injury element for a preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order. Cangemi v. Yeager, 185 A.D.3d 1397, 1397, 1399, 1400 (4th Dept.
2020) (finding abuse of discretion in denial of motion for a preliminary injunction and TRO
because irreparable injury was shown by “pointing video cameras and lights at plaintiff’s
backyard,” as well as holding that irreparable injury generally is shown by conduct that “in some
way threatens the destruction of the plaintiff’s property”); Arcamone-Makinano v. Britton Prop.,
Inc., 83 A.D.3d 623, 624 (2d Dept. 2011) (irreparable injury shown from I-Beams encroaching
approximately 11 inches onto the plaintiffs’ property and 18 feet below the ground met);
Trimboli v. Irwin, 18 A.D.3d 866, 867 (2d Dept. 2005) (“the threat of the destruction of the
plaintiff’s property constitutes irreparable harm”) (quoting Randisi v. Mira Gardens, Inc.,
272 A.D.2d 387, 388 (2d Dept. 2000)); Karabatos v. Hagopian, 39 A.D.3d 930, 931 (3d Dept.
2007) (“inasmuch as . . . the removal of soil, rock, trees and other vegetation is both irreversible
and threatens the structural integrity of the properties adjoining the road, plaintiffs demonstrated
a danger of irreparable injury”); Walsh v. St. Mary’s Church, 248 A.D.2d 792, 794 (3d Dept.
1998) (holding “the threat of removal of several large trees . . . constitutes irreparable harm”);
Neighbour v. Broome Plaza LLC, Index No. 652877/2020, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 19617 at *2
4 of 9
FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
(N.Y.S. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.) (Nov. 23, 2020) (enjoining development and construction that
would damage plaintiff’s property in violation of license agreement).
12. Here, as discussed above, Defendants are in the act of performing land-
clearing work, which is shown by the evidence in the record. Namely, the affidavit of Spencer
Busler and the photographs attached to that affidavit that were taken by Mr. Busler on April 9,
2024 and that show the beginnings of the work (Doc. 14 ¶¶ 42-45; Doc. 24). Specifically,
Mr. Busler personally observed the following:
[H]eavy equipment beg[a]n to arrive at the Villa Property via the
RJ Marine barge between 9:00 to 9:30 a.m. To my continued
surprise, the equipment operators began clearing vegetation almost
immediately upon arriving. The sound of scraping, cracking, and
tearing down trees and other vegetation was quite loud, and I
undoubtedly heard this work.
At approximately 12:00 p.m., I monitored the interior of the Villa
Property. I observed a skid-steer-mounted brush hog clearing
vegetation between the historic stone wall and the structure on the
Villa Property. I further observed a large excavator clearing trees
and vegetation just east of the skid steer on a line heading towards
the direction of North Bay.
(id.). Mr. Busler then took photographs via drone that showed a yellow excavator performing
this work on an undeveloped, vegetated portion of the Villa Property (id. ¶ 44; Doc. 24 at pp.
17/177 through 42/177 (showing yellow excavator in the process of performing work as the arm
is photographed in different positions, thereby showing it is moving), pp. 78/177 through 80/177
(same), pp. 84/177 through 93/177 (same), pp. 114/177 through 116/177 (same), pp. 132/177
through 135/177 (same)).
13. Again, to be clear, starting this past Tuesday, Defendants are out on the
property doing land-clearing work, tearing up the land with an excavator and skid steer. Further,
5 of 9
FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
the mere fact that the work is just beginning does not diminish the irreparable injury, but rather is
even more reason to grant the TRO because the damage can be stopped. Thus, Plaintiff has
certainly met the burden for irreparable injury under the case law discussed above.
14. Moreover, the equities heavily way in favor of a TRO because courts have
long recognized that damage to property is irreparable given that it cannot be compensated by
monetary damages, while, on the other hand, Defendants will suffer no hardship because they do
not even have the municipal approvals yet to begin or complete their development property
project and open their business (Doc. 14 ¶ 45). Indeed, the property at issue has not been used
for decades (id. ¶ 24), and Defendants are not operating a business there that would be impacted
in any way, shape, or form by a TRO (see id. ¶¶ 24, 45).
15. Also, based on the evidence in the record and the language of the
Easement and the Declaration, Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits because the proposed
development would violate several provisions of the Easement and the Declaration (Doc. 14
¶¶ 30, 31, 34, 47). This is discussed at length in Point I of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in
support of its motion to the trial court (Doc. 27 at pp. 4-10). Indeed, the work that has recently
begun already violated one straightforward provision of the Declaration, which is that
Defendants were required to give 30 days prior notice of this work to Plaintiff; Defendants never
provided any such notice (Doc. 14 ¶ 46).
16. At the very least, this Court should grant the TRO to preserve the status
quo. The more work that is done on the property, the more damage that will occur to the
conservation and ecological values that Plaintiff has the right to protect and will seek to be
6 of 9
FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
restored. It will result in a more complicated (and costly) restoration project, which might still
not be able to fully restore the property given uncontrollable, naturally occurring variables. On
the other hand, Defendants will suffer minimal to no hardship because the property has been
vacant and unused for decades, and a TRO will not interrupt or interfere with any business or
occupation of the property.
17. Therefore, for these reasons, and those more fully discussed in the
underlying motion papers that are being submitted in support of this motion, this Court should
grant the TRO because the required elements have been met and it is necessary to prevent further
damage to the Villa Property.
{The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank}
7 of 9
FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
18. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court
issue a TRO that enjoins Defendants from pursuing any further work on the property described
in the Order to Show Cause, including, but not limited to, excavation, land clearing, vegetation
removal, erection of structures, foundation work, paving, and any other work in furtherance of
Defendants’ proposed development. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the TRO remain effective
during the pendency of Plaintiff’s underlying motion for a preliminary injunction pending before
the lower court. In the alternative, however, Plaintiff respectfully requests the issuance of a TRO
that remains effective until submissions can be made to the Court to rule on the continuation of
the TRO. Plaintiff also respectfully requests that this Court award it such other and further relief
that this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 12, 2024
Saratoga Springs, New York
RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By:
Phillip A. Oswald, Esq.
227 Washington St., Suite 1C
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
(518) 886-1902
oswald@rupppfalzgraf.com
TO: CARLETON VILLA, LLC
c/o Registered Agent Solutions, Inc.
99 Washington Avenue, Suite 1008
Albany, NY 12210
RON CLAPP
711 N. Broadway
Lantana, FL 33462
8 of 9
FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT LIMIT
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.8-b
The total number of words in the foregoing document, excluding the caption, the
signature block, and any table of contents and table of authorities is 2,004 words, as calculated
by the word processing system used to prepare this document; and this document complies with
the word count limit.
Dated: April 12, 2024 RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC
Saratoga Springs, New York Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: ______________________________
Phillip A. Oswald, Esq.
227 Washington Street, Suite 1C
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
(518) 886-1902
oswald@RuppPfalzgraf.com
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ___________________________________________ THOUSAND ISLANDS LAND TRUST, INC., Plaintiff, -against- Index No.: RON CLAPP and CARLETON VILLA, LLC, Defendants. ___________________________________________ ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF THOUSAND ISLANDS LAND TRUST, INC.’S MOTION TO REARGUE ITS PRIOR MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PHILLIP A. OSWALD, ESQ., pursuant to CPLR 2106, affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the State of New York with the law firm of Rupp Pfalzgraf LLC, attorneys for Plaintiff, Thousand Islands Land Trust, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). I have worked on this matter extensively, and, therefore, I fully am familiar with the procedural and factual history stated herein. 2. This affirmation is being submitted in support of Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to N.Y. CPLR to reargue its prior motion for a temporary restraining order and ultimately a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants Ron Clapp and Carleton Villa, LLC (“Defendants”) from pursuing any further development work on the Defendants’ property (the “Villa Property”) because that ongoing work is violating and will continue to violate both a Conservation Easement (the “Easement”) and a Declaration of Restrictions (the “Declaration”). 1 of 9 FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 3. Plaintiff’s papers in support of its motion for a TRO were served on Defendants’ counsel on April 10, 2024, and Defendants thereby have notice of this application. 4. On April 11, 2024, this Court issued a signed OTSC that struck the language requesting a TRO, thereby denying that part of Plaintiff’s motion. 5. Respectfully, this part of Plaintiff’s motion should have been granted because Defendants’ proposed development—for which they have just started work—is violating and will continue to violate both the Easement and the Declaration, thereby causing irreparable injury to the Villa Property and Carleton Island as a whole. On the other hand, Defendants will suffer no hardship from granting this motion because the Villa Property has been vacant and unused for decades, Defendants are not operating a business there, and Defendants do not even have the necessary permits or approvals yet to begin the work to develop that property for their business. 6. In addition to this affirmation, Plaintiff is also submitting all other papers filed in connection with its initial motion, which papers are incorporated by reference pursuant to N.Y. CPLR 2214(c). Specifically, the following papers are being incorporated by reference to their document number (“Doc.”): 10 (Proposed Order to Show Cause), 11 (Attorney Affirmation), 12 (Verified Complaint), 13 (Marked Site Plan), 14 (Affidavit of Spencer Busler in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Busler Affidavit” or “Busler Aff.”), duly sworn on April 10, 2024), 15 (Deed of Easement), 16 (Carleton Island Map), 17 (Town’s Comprehensive Plan), 18 (State Conservation Plan), 19 (Declaration of Restrictions), 20 (Notice of Public Hearing), 21 (Application Materials), 22 (GIS Map of the Villa Property), 23 (Drone 2 of 9 FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 Map taken on April 9, 2024), 24 (Photographs taken on April 9, 2024), 25 (Defendants’ Site Plan), 26 (TILTs written notice dated April 5, 2024), 27 (Memorandum of Law in Support), 30 (Defendants’ letter requesting to be heard), and 31 (signed Order to Show Cause entered by the Court). 7. Generally, to succeed on a motion to reargue under CPLR 2221(d), the movant must identify specific facts that were overlooked or principles of law which were misapplied by the court. E.g., Frenchman v. Lynch, 97 A. D.3d 632, 633, 948 N.Y.S.2d 396 (2d Dept. 2012). Here, the specific fact that was, respectfully, overlooked was that the development work (and the damage caused by it) has started and is ongoing at this time, beginning this past Tuesday, April 9, 2024 (Doc. 14 ¶¶ 42-45; Doc. 24). The fact that this work is ongoing meets the irreparable-injury element under the well-settled law discussed below in paragraph 11. Further, the Villa Property is not owned by Defendants free and clear of any interest held by Plaintiff, but, instead, Plaintiff holds significant and substantial interests and rights in that property to ensure that it is conserved and protected (Doc. 14 ¶¶ 11-13, 18, 19; Doc. Nos. 15, 19). 8. A full and complete narrative of the factual background is provided in the Busler Affidavit and in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. 9. Plaintiff commenced this action on April 10, 2024 by filing a Verified Complaint. On that same day, Plaintiff filed a motion by way of order to show cause (“OTSC”) seeking a TRO and ultimately a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from pursuing any further work on the Villa Property, including, but not limited to, excavation, land clearing, 3 of 9 FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 vegetation removal, erection of structures, foundation work, paving, and any other work in furtherance of Defendants’ development. 10. Plaintiff made this motion because its staff discovered that on April 9, 2024, Defendant had started development work. Specifically, the work that begun this past Tuesday was land-clearing with the use of a skid steer and excavator. 11. The law is beyond well settled that ongoing (or even threatened) damage to property is sufficient to meet the irreparable injury element for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Cangemi v. Yeager, 185 A.D.3d 1397, 1397, 1399, 1400 (4th Dept. 2020) (finding abuse of discretion in denial of motion for a preliminary injunction and TRO because irreparable injury was shown by “pointing video cameras and lights at plaintiff’s backyard,” as well as holding that irreparable injury generally is shown by conduct that “in some way threatens the destruction of the plaintiff’s property”); Arcamone-Makinano v. Britton Prop., Inc., 83 A.D.3d 623, 624 (2d Dept. 2011) (irreparable injury shown from I-Beams encroaching approximately 11 inches onto the plaintiffs’ property and 18 feet below the ground met); Trimboli v. Irwin, 18 A.D.3d 866, 867 (2d Dept. 2005) (“the threat of the destruction of the plaintiff’s property constitutes irreparable harm”) (quoting Randisi v. Mira Gardens, Inc., 272 A.D.2d 387, 388 (2d Dept. 2000)); Karabatos v. Hagopian, 39 A.D.3d 930, 931 (3d Dept. 2007) (“inasmuch as . . . the removal of soil, rock, trees and other vegetation is both irreversible and threatens the structural integrity of the properties adjoining the road, plaintiffs demonstrated a danger of irreparable injury”); Walsh v. St. Mary’s Church, 248 A.D.2d 792, 794 (3d Dept. 1998) (holding “the threat of removal of several large trees . . . constitutes irreparable harm”); Neighbour v. Broome Plaza LLC, Index No. 652877/2020, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 19617 at *2 4 of 9 FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 (N.Y.S. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.) (Nov. 23, 2020) (enjoining development and construction that would damage plaintiff’s property in violation of license agreement). 12. Here, as discussed above, Defendants are in the act of performing land- clearing work, which is shown by the evidence in the record. Namely, the affidavit of Spencer Busler and the photographs attached to that affidavit that were taken by Mr. Busler on April 9, 2024 and that show the beginnings of the work (Doc. 14 ¶¶ 42-45; Doc. 24). Specifically, Mr. Busler personally observed the following: [H]eavy equipment beg[a]n to arrive at the Villa Property via the RJ Marine barge between 9:00 to 9:30 a.m. To my continued surprise, the equipment operators began clearing vegetation almost immediately upon arriving. The sound of scraping, cracking, and tearing down trees and other vegetation was quite loud, and I undoubtedly heard this work. At approximately 12:00 p.m., I monitored the interior of the Villa Property. I observed a skid-steer-mounted brush hog clearing vegetation between the historic stone wall and the structure on the Villa Property. I further observed a large excavator clearing trees and vegetation just east of the skid steer on a line heading towards the direction of North Bay. (id.). Mr. Busler then took photographs via drone that showed a yellow excavator performing this work on an undeveloped, vegetated portion of the Villa Property (id. ¶ 44; Doc. 24 at pp. 17/177 through 42/177 (showing yellow excavator in the process of performing work as the arm is photographed in different positions, thereby showing it is moving), pp. 78/177 through 80/177 (same), pp. 84/177 through 93/177 (same), pp. 114/177 through 116/177 (same), pp. 132/177 through 135/177 (same)). 13. Again, to be clear, starting this past Tuesday, Defendants are out on the property doing land-clearing work, tearing up the land with an excavator and skid steer. Further, 5 of 9 FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 the mere fact that the work is just beginning does not diminish the irreparable injury, but rather is even more reason to grant the TRO because the damage can be stopped. Thus, Plaintiff has certainly met the burden for irreparable injury under the case law discussed above. 14. Moreover, the equities heavily way in favor of a TRO because courts have long recognized that damage to property is irreparable given that it cannot be compensated by monetary damages, while, on the other hand, Defendants will suffer no hardship because they do not even have the municipal approvals yet to begin or complete their development property project and open their business (Doc. 14 ¶ 45). Indeed, the property at issue has not been used for decades (id. ¶ 24), and Defendants are not operating a business there that would be impacted in any way, shape, or form by a TRO (see id. ¶¶ 24, 45). 15. Also, based on the evidence in the record and the language of the Easement and the Declaration, Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits because the proposed development would violate several provisions of the Easement and the Declaration (Doc. 14 ¶¶ 30, 31, 34, 47). This is discussed at length in Point I of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in support of its motion to the trial court (Doc. 27 at pp. 4-10). Indeed, the work that has recently begun already violated one straightforward provision of the Declaration, which is that Defendants were required to give 30 days prior notice of this work to Plaintiff; Defendants never provided any such notice (Doc. 14 ¶ 46). 16. At the very least, this Court should grant the TRO to preserve the status quo. The more work that is done on the property, the more damage that will occur to the conservation and ecological values that Plaintiff has the right to protect and will seek to be 6 of 9 FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 restored. It will result in a more complicated (and costly) restoration project, which might still not be able to fully restore the property given uncontrollable, naturally occurring variables. On the other hand, Defendants will suffer minimal to no hardship because the property has been vacant and unused for decades, and a TRO will not interrupt or interfere with any business or occupation of the property. 17. Therefore, for these reasons, and those more fully discussed in the underlying motion papers that are being submitted in support of this motion, this Court should grant the TRO because the required elements have been met and it is necessary to prevent further damage to the Villa Property. {The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank} 7 of 9 FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 18. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue a TRO that enjoins Defendants from pursuing any further work on the property described in the Order to Show Cause, including, but not limited to, excavation, land clearing, vegetation removal, erection of structures, foundation work, paving, and any other work in furtherance of Defendants’ proposed development. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the TRO remain effective during the pendency of Plaintiff’s underlying motion for a preliminary injunction pending before the lower court. In the alternative, however, Plaintiff respectfully requests the issuance of a TRO that remains effective until submissions can be made to the Court to rule on the continuation of the TRO. Plaintiff also respectfully requests that this Court award it such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper. Dated: April 12, 2024 Saratoga Springs, New York RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff By: Phillip A. Oswald, Esq. 227 Washington St., Suite 1C Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518) 886-1902 oswald@rupppfalzgraf.com TO: CARLETON VILLA, LLC c/o Registered Agent Solutions, Inc. 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 1008 Albany, NY 12210 RON CLAPP 711 N. Broadway Lantana, FL 33462 8 of 9 FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-00001583 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT LIMIT Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.8-b The total number of words in the foregoing document, excluding the caption, the signature block, and any table of contents and table of authorities is 2,004 words, as calculated by the word processing system used to prepare this document; and this document complies with the word count limit. Dated: April 12, 2024 RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC Saratoga Springs, New York Attorneys for Plaintiff By: ______________________________ Phillip A. Oswald, Esq. 227 Washington Street, Suite 1C Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518) 886-1902 oswald@RuppPfalzgraf.com 9 of 9