# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Sterngass v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission (No. 07-1381) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386020_1430%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 2007 ## Text a ae Fae, Beit ay RTE I Ty ee RR CNRS eu HS ae Se oe ¢ : as a pigees we ei a @ See: 071381 MAY 02 2008 in thie. : | a Supreme Court of the Anited States No. : RUBIN STERNGASS, Petitioner, -against- PALISADES INTERSTATE PARK COMMISSION, THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE TOWN SUPERVISOR OF THE TOWN OF ORANGETOWN, et. al., Respondents. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT RUBIN STERNGASS Petitioner, Pro Se 129 Ridge Road Valley Cottage, New York 10989 (845) 268-2558 DICK BAILEY SERVICE (212) 608-7666 (718) 522-4363 (516) 222-2470 (914) 682-0848 Fax: (718) 522-4024 1-800-531-2028 ee ee i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. May the State, by its Agency — the Palisades Park Commission, as created by the Congressional Compact of 1900 and as further defined — evade the mandate and intent of that Federal law AND as so raised below and judicially ignored? . 2. Does that Agency have the authority to take real property without actually paying for it, pursuant to the “just compensation” constitutional mandate? 3. Is the lack of personal notice to the known property-owner required by Law, prior to appropriation, AND did appropriation, without such required ‘notice, create improper “subject matter” jurisdiction to the New York Court of Claims? 4. Is “Just Compensation” to be defined as made by uncollectible judgment, or is it to be made in United States currency only, AND is it permitted contrary to the terms ofthe Congressional Compact to unilaterally release itself from these interstate obligations? 5. Is “Just Compensation” for improved commercial highway billboard use — prior to Zoning — to be valued at its “highest available use” by the Court of Claims of the State of New York? 6. Did the Agency’s coercive action manipulate the New York Court of Claims evade its constitutional responsibility under the Fifth (5), Seventh (7th) and li Fourteenth (14) Constitutional Amendments AND exceed its jurisdictional limits? 7. Did the Circuit Court of Appeals Dismissal, Sua Sponte, on the unraised issue of the Statute of Limitations violate my Due Process to be heard on my claim of a void taking of my real property? 8. Did the lower court’s avoidance of the Doctrine of “Judicial” Notice of the Common Law Constitutional and public statutes of the United States deny Due Process and Equal Protection, as mandated? 9. Is the appropriation and taking void by the fact of non-payment a prima fascia basis for return of the real property? 10. Is an Interlocutory Judgment, as issued by the New York Court of Claims, a collectible money judgment, or does it expire after ten (10) or rinisagd (20) years and non-payment? 11. New York State Case Law adheres to the judicial notice principle that must be followed when a Federal statute is involved. Should not a Congressional Compact demand the same judicial respect? iil _ LIST OF PARTIES The parties to the proceeding are shown in the caption. Petitioners are not a corporation. Respondent is not a foreign bank, and we have no knowledge of parent corporations or subsidiaries. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS | Page REL FIONONOUNE 5k See ee ees 1 Re ION cies ys i eve oy pawn ee il Table of Authorities ..... Gao eee pie aw wee ke v Statement cf the Basis for the Jurisdiction ...... 1 Constitumional Provieions .............66s.06 5 3 Biaisuiont EE ee ae kare es ee Reasons for Granting the Writ of I 8 8, iors alan Ck wigs oe ive a te eee Sue eS 10 Conclusion ........ SCabie et a eetie ped ee ane a es 11 x ae ee Pe at MAE DE COT OO AR INE Rete ets EO ee RE RU a Ley AAAS RCI aPT ha Beer REE a eK ME: VORA iy Read Vv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | Page CASES: Aberdeen Restaurant v. Gottfried (1936), BOG HY O02 66. c.s Be gna ARC Rate 3 Alves v. United States (Federal Circuit 1998), 3 Dee ee PEO hs a ee i ee ee oR 1 a Arverne Bay v. Thatcher, : LTH ES oo i So has HOR le T a Association of Data Processing v. Camp (1970), q ES Se ee ee ee 5 a Atkocus v. Terker (1941), 4 ERE AR See seg a Oe 5 Bass Enters Prod. v. United States 4 (Federal Circuit 1998), a etn en ies cs che eee ee i; 2 a Berenson v. Town of New Castle, q 38 NY 2106; 341 NE 2236, 378 4 ipo 7 Briarcliff Associates Inc., et al. v. Town of Cortlandt, 708 NYS2 421; 272 AD2 488; denied 96 (NY2) Me HUE BON 5s oe iwi ow eh ea oes oo 8 vi Chase Securities v. Donaldson (1945), 325 U 304; 65 S. Sot, es BEA os ek cee was 6 oes 8 ~ Connoly v. Pension-Benefit, 475 US 211 @ 225; 106 S. Ct. 1018 @ 1026 (1986) and Briarcliff Associates Inc. ........... 8 Cooper v. Morin (1977), 398 NYS 2d 36; 49 NYS 2d 69, Cert. Denied 1090 S. Ct. 2965; 446 US 984 ...............7. 5 Cuyler v. Adams (1981), G60. US 29a; 101 S.Ct. 708 o.oo ee. 13,12 DeHart v. Hatch (1875), I Es ee ec we Sie wks ea wares 8 Donohue v. Cornelius (1966), Ue ee OP EE obs hs cae cee wd ve Re ee we 3 Dowski v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. (1946), 65 NYS 2d 890; 271 AD 874; 66 NYS 2d 635..... 9) Engel v. Just Rite Handkerchief Co. (1943), Ae ee ee eee og 5 First English Church vu. Los Angeles 1987, 482 US 304; 107 S. Ct. 2378; 96 LED 2 25010, 11, 12 509 Sixth Avenue Corp. v. New York City Transit Authority, 15 NY 2D 48, 265 NYS 20D 89... 2.0 ee. 8,13 ae ree eee Vii Gordon v. Ramapo ( 1972), 30 NY2d 359, 285 NE 2 291, 334 NYS SES ERNE SEER Ba TEESE , a J oat mf a hs ee oy as - : % ; ¥ +4 4 2 rs 4 i = “2 ats Ly M4 a x a bs Bx a a a Y , “ se ® ’ . Re NR ee ND RAS OL ITT TLD [POA Maly eee aon TNE ALS Se TR Sa UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Court House _ 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, CLERK OF COURT ORDER Docket # 06-1073-CV At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United Staves Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 7™ day of February two thousand eight. Before: Hon. Sonia Sotomayor, Hon. Debra Ann Livingston, Circuit Judges. Hon. Gregory W. Carman, Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade. Rubin Sterngass, Plaintiff-Appellant, Vv. Palisades Interstate Park Commission, the State of New York, the Town Supervisor of the Town of Orangetown, Defendants-Appellees. 6a Appellant Rubin Sterngass having filed a petition for pane] rehearing and the panel that determined the appeal having considered the request, ITIS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitionisdenied. = For the Court: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk By: s/ Judy Pinamont Motion Staff Attorney Filed February 07, 2008 7a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RUBIN STERNGASS, Plaintiff, -against- , PALISADES INTERSTATE PARK COMMISSION, the STATE OF NEW YORK, and the TOWN SUPERVISOR of the TOWN OF ORANGETOWN, : Defendants. 05 Civ. 8784 (CM) MEMORANDUM ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE McMahon, J:: This matter was transferred to this Court by the Hon. Stephen C. Robinson, U.S.D.J. The complaint is virtually unintelligible. It appears, however, that plaintiff once owned land in Rockland County (Town f Orangetown) that was taken by the State of New York and/or the Palisades Interstate Park Commission. The present complaint seeks to void that taking as being beyond the State’s power and a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Putting aside any jurisdictional defects (for example, New York State’s sovereign immunity, or the LP Se Sage ES sia be sp Age 2 SF gp eBies toss. sth fit st oh ee Lae a ee at eb oat Ook SE ey 8a fact that the State of New York has an Eminent Domain law that has been held to satisfy Due Process considerations in connection with takings of property), the complaint is dismissible sua sponte as time barred, because the fact of the pleading demonstrates that plaintiffs property was appropriated on July 13, 1964 (see Affidavit of Title, attached to complaint as an exhibit and sworn to by plaintiff himself, which recites that as the date of appropriation). The affidavit led tot he entry of a judgment on consent in favor of the plaintiff in the New York Court of Claims (where the State of New York can be sued for money damages). We know this from another exhibit to the complaint, a letter from the Attorney General of the State of New York to the Court of Claims asking that judgment enter against the State and the Commission. The letter is dated May 15, 1968. So Plaintiff had to have known about the purportedly illegal taking at some point prior to May 15, 1968. Any federal claim in connection therewith that is brought in 2005 is of necessity time barred. The complaint is dismissed sua sponte, with prejudice and without costs. Copies mailed to counsel 12/19/05 Dated: December 19, 2005 s/ U.S.D.J. BY FIRST CLASS MAIL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW YORK, BY FIRST CLASS MAIL TO PLAINTIFF. 9a ____- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ; RUBIN STERNGASS, = Plaintiff, Pro Se, -against- Palisades Interstate Park Commission, The State of New York, The Town Supervisor of the Town of Orangetown, Defendants. & 05 Civ. 8784 Filed Oct 17, 2005 VERIFIED COMPLAINT “Jury Trial Demanded” October 6, 2005 United States Courthouse 300 Quarropas Street White Plains, NY 10601-4150 Attention: Mr. J. Michael McMahon Clerk of Court av PSN mS rt a Pes Ape ECS A eS bs ae Laan a ie OL PSE th gS ge ee aS A naiae ES a ee MT aay ta eG Eee ORES MERE bac tee Ser SL yt Pi Saha Sth ON aS eS et TiN Sin Sel emia” Mier eau ease eeu ee Baron Se Ee kee RMI NEE Ee MG BPS es SARTO Coe Ne ES : Dear Mr. McMahon: Iam RUBIN STERNGASS, the Pro Se Plaintiff in this Action, residing in the County of Rockland, State of New York; and I state the following: Ais in eA aS id, set ie 2 a le Nene es OS Col etna ae des en ie ee ie eee lS es ER ee ee le lL at ales Sh Bee a al ie oy rk 2 EES iy - 4. : r i ae te Pe Rey, SE PS ; . ; * 10a APPEAL, CLOSED U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (White Plains) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:05-cv-08784-CM Internal Use Only Sterngass v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission et al Assigned to: Judge Colleen McMahon Cause: 28:1331 (a) Fed. Question: Real Property Date Filed: 10/17/2005 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintifi Rubin Sterngass represented by: Rubin Sterngass 129 Ridge Road Valley Cottage, NY 10989 (845) 268-0180 Vv. PRO SE Defendant Palisades Interstate Fark Commission Defendant The State of New York lla The Town Supervisor of the Town of Orangetown Date Filed: 1/17/2005 - #1 COMPLAINT _ against Palisades Interstate Park Commission, The State of New York, The Town Supervisor of the Town of Orangetown. (Filing Fee $250.00. Receipt Number 554824) Document filed by Rubin Sterngass.(tb) (Entered: 10/17/2005) : Date Filed: 10/17/2005 : SUMMONS ISSUED as to Palisades a Interstate Park Commission, The State of New York, The Town Supervisor of the Town of Orangetown. (tb) (Entered: 10/17/2005) MREA*O.42*AC. PROPERTY OF ‘RUBIN STERNGASS TOWN OF € ?4NGETOVIN ROCK LAND CO., NEW YORE SC4LE+(*40 | FEB. 25,/20F & Be be ie ke Ke Be Re: |e FROMM ON Re OP tae Peet Ne gee pe eee WSO ied te ae L3a R-9421 LIBER 650 Page 208 THIS INDENTURE, Made the 18" day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven between ELEANOR ISEMAN, residing at 35 Lexington Avenue, in the Borough of Westwood, County of Bergen and the State of New Jersey, party of the first part, and RUBIN STERNGASS, residing at Ridge Road, (no number) Valley Cottage, Rockland County, New York, party of the second part. ‘WITNESSTH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of Ten ($10.00) -------- Dollars, lawful money of the United States, and other good and valuable consideration do so hereby grant and release unto the party of the sécond part, his heirs, and all that certain lot, piece or parcel of land and premises, situate, lying and being in Sparkill, Rockland County, New York, bound and described as follows: BEGINNING at a stake at the Northeasterly side of Route No. 9W and from thence running South 85 degrees 27 minutes East 166.30 feet to a point; thence running South 88 degrees 43 minutes East 14.10 feet to a spike in the Westerly side of Rockland Road South 18 degrees 14 minutes East 71.95 feet to a spike; thence still along the Westerly side of Rock!and road South 18 degrees 12 minutes West 68.90 feet to a spike; thence running South 79 degrees 28 minutes West 56.10 feet to a monument; on the Northeasterly side of Route 9W North 38 degrees 54 minutes 30 seconds West 205.70 feet to the point or place of beginning. 14a Article 7 NON-CONFORMING USE AND NON-CONFORMING BULK REGULATIONS 2.1. Applicability. This Article applies only to buildings and non- building uses in existence on the effective date of this ordinance. Except as otherwise expressly provided in Sec. 7.3, the lawful use of any premises existing on the effective date of this ordinance may be continued although neither such use nor the bulk of the same conforms to the regulations. Town Board Notice for regular meeting to adopt amendment to zoning ordinance, for Town of Orangetown, Rockland County, State of N.Y. Signed and dated 2/25/1957. 1Sa RUBIN STERNGASS 129 Ridge Road Valley Cottage, New York 10989 HOME: (845) 268-2558; CELL: (845) 721-0421 FAX: (845) 268-2176 December 1, 2005 Town of Orangetown 26 Orangeburg Road Orangeburg, NY 10962 Attention: Ms. Charlotte E. Madigan Town Clerk © Reference: Sterngass v. PIP, et al. United States District Court / Docket No. 05 CIV 8784 Dear Ms. Madigan: The attached Summons and Complaint is being served upon your office for distribution to the offices of the Town Supervisor and the Town Attorney; and I hereby demand compliance with the procedure, as indicated within that Summons. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Respectfully yours, s/ Rubin Sterngass RS:bsr Enclosures ene ac l6a RUBIN STERNGASS 129 Ridge Road Valley Cottage, New York 10989 HOME: (845) 268-2558; CELL: (845) 721-0421 FAX: (845) 268-2176 December 1, 2005 Affiliated Planning Services, Inc. Real Estate Appraisals and Planning Services Three Old Brick Road New City, New York 10956 Attention: Mr. David G. Adams Reference: Appraisal for Property in Sparkill, NY Dear Mr. Adams: — Kindly advise of your cost and availability to perform an appraisal of the site situation in Sparkill, Town of Orangetown. (A copy of a map and deed of the site is enclosed for your reference.) The appraisal I require is for the “highest and best use” — specifically, for a Pylon-type sign. The site contained a highway billboard from 1930 to 1964. In 1964, the State of New York removed that billboard and appropriated the land as “vacant”. Your prompt reply will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Very truly yours, s/ Rubin Sterngass | RS:bsr : Enclosures (Map and Deed) 17a United States District Court: Southern District of New York Office of the Clerk U.S. Courthouse 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, N.Y. 10601 x Sterngass V. Palisades x NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT 05 civ. 8784 (cm) Pursuant to the memorandum of the Case Processing Assistant the above entitled action is reassigned to the calendar of JUDGE_s/ Colleen M. Mahon All future documents submitted in this action shall bear the assigned judge’s initials after the case number. If this case is assigned to the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system, documents must be submitted electronically, and shall also bear the notation “ECF CASE” under the docket. The attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) are requested to serve a copy of the Notice of Reassignment on all defendants. Fone dae SAE aE NS CPT Be FREE De OR RIE Me EP AREY COPANO ay PUES ME aie A Ie aes Seg 18a Dated: 12/14/05 J. Michael McMahon, CLERK by: _s/ Fiona Kryan Deputy Clerk REDESIGNATED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: Attorneys of Record 19a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RUBIN STERNGASS, Plaintiff, Pro Se, -against- Palisades Interstate Park Commission, the State of New York, and the Town Supervisor of the Town of Orangetown, Defendants. NOTICF OF APPEAL Locket No.: 05 CIV 8784 (CM) Notice is hereby given that RUBIN STERNGASS hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the Judgment, as issued by Decision dated December 19, 2005 in the above-captioned matter, Sua Sponte dismissed Mr. Sterngass’ original Complaint and was entered in this action on the 20“ day of December, 2005. Signed: Rubin Sterngass Plaintiff, Pro Se 129 Ridge Road Valley Collage, NY 10989 Home: (845) 268-2558 Cell: (845) 721-0421 Dated: January 10, 2006 20a THURGOOD MARSHALL U.S. COURT HOUSE 40 FOLEY SQUARE NEW YORK, NY 10007 Catherine O’Hagan CLERK OF COURT LOCAL RULE 34 QUESTIONNAIRE: ORAL ARGUMENTS IN PRO SE CASES Case Name: Sterngass Vv. Palisades Interstate Park Commission Docket No: 06-1073-cv Date: 9/19/07 we ce FF FOF OED OBER SEB EO RA RO DOD AARRES SADA DDD ED DDD OD NOTICE: THIS FORM MUST BE FILLED OUT AND FILED WITH THE CLERK OF COURT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE ABOVE READ THIS WHOLE FORM Now that the filing of briefs in this appeal is done, this appeal is ready to go to three judges for decision. The appeal can be decided on the briefs that have already been filed, without live argument in the courtroom (called “oral argument”), or it can be decided after oral argument. At oral argument, the judges are not required to coisider any argument unless it is made in the briefs, and they will not accept additional papers or evidence. 2la If all parties agree, this case can go directly to decision on the basis of the written briefs. Nothing more is then required from the parties; but note that judges can always request oral argument at any time. If oral argument is desired, you must say so a below on this form. Please read carefully all three 4 statement set out below, check the one appropriate’ - line, and sign: 4 _____I would like to have this case decided on the a basis of the written briefs, without oral _ argument, if all parties also agree not to argue a orally. : I do not want to argue orally even if other parties do. x I want to argue orally even if no one else does. Signature: _ Date: 4 Print Name: s/ RUBIN STERNGASS Party: _ Plaintiff, Pro Se if you seek oral argument, you must appear on the 4 argument date set by the Court. Failure to return this completed form within 14 days of this date will mean that you do not seek oral argument. Any other request for oral argument in briefs, letters or motions will be disregarded. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386020_1430%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.