Zoning lawsuit against town refiled in federal court

By JEFF MORRIS

A legal battle between a Katonah homeowner and the town of Bedford that has been ongoing for two years continues, and is being waged in both county and federal court.

On March 27, 2025, Melanie Hammer, of 146 Goldens Bridge Road, Katonah, filed, again, a constitutional and civil rights lawsuit against the town in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

This most recent filing in federal court follows several legal actions Hammer took at both the county and federal level, and a county court suit the Bedford Town Board, in turn, authorized against her last fall.

The resolution authorizing the town’s suit, passed by the Town Board at its Oct. 1, 2024 meeting, provides an extensive history of the litigation, albeit from the town’s perspective.

According to the resolution, Hammer’s property is a single 11.69-acre lot in the town’s R-1A (1 acre) zoning district. “Existing on the Property is a principal residence which Ms. Hammer occupies, alongside a pre-existing non-conforming standalone cottage. Also existing on the Property is a standalone accessory garage structure,” the resolution states.

Noting that a Certificate of Compliance had been issued in 2014 permitting a “finished recreation room over [a] garage” for the second floor of the standalone garage, the resolution says on April 19, 2023, “the Building Department was contacted by an individual who identified themselves as a ‘tenant living in [an] apartment over garage’ at the Property, who was concerned the apartment on the second floor of the garage on the Property was ‘not legal.’”

An inspection on April 27, 2023, discovered that the recreation room had been converted into a residential apartment.

“Specifically,” said the resolution, “the recreation room on the second floor of the standalone garage had been improved with the creation of two bedrooms, installation of a kitchen area with a sink, stove and refrigerator, and the installation of a full bathroom with a toilet, sink, and shower, none of which had existed when the Certificate of Occupancy was issued in July 2014.”

The narrative continues with Hammer being advised to either remove the unlawful apartment and all improvements associated with it, or to legalize the improvements by submitting a building permit application. On July 10, 2023, Hammer filed an application to revert the second floor of the garage back to a recreation room. However, she apparently changed her mind, and on Sept. 7 of that year, submitted another application to legalize the apartment. That application was denied by the building inspector, who determined that the proposed residential use was a “Cottage” which is not permitted in an R-1A zoning district. Hammer was notified that she would need to request a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals if she disagreed.

On Dec. 7, 2023, the ZBA upheld the building inspector’s decision, affirming that a cottage was not permitted under the code and that Hammer had not submitted sufficient evidence to allow a variance.

Hammer countered that decision by filing an Article 78 petition on Nov. 30, 2023, contesting the ZBA’s ruling. Among other things, the petition asked that the town pay $14,400 for lost rental income; an additional $2,400 a month for lost rent; $22,000 for legal fees; future attorney’s fees at $550 per hour; $100,000 in punitive damages; and $2 million for “unlawfully devaluing Ms. Hammer’s property.”

The Article 78 petition was dismissed in its entirety by Judge George Fufidio on Feb. 9, 2024, and Hammer followed that up by filing an appeal on Feb. 26.

Town Attorney Eric Gordon stated at the time the resolution was passed that the town was unable to convince the owner that the improvements should be removed.

“Town law allows towns to commence litigation in order to correct zoning violations,” he said. “The town justice court doesn’t have the authority to issue injunctive relief requiring a property owner to comply with zoning laws, it only has the authority to issue fines.”

The town’s suit remains open. Meanwhile, Hammer has gone through several legal proceedings.

On Feb. 16, 2024, Hammer filed a civil rights suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District, listing as defendants Town of Bedford New York, Department of Building Bedford New York, Peter Michaelis, Meredith Black, Rosemary Lee, Roger Van Lovern, Lisa Spano, Albert Ciraco and Eric Gordon. Michaelis, Black, Lee, Van Lovern and Spano are members of the ZBA; Ciraco is the building inspector. Gordon is with the firm of Keane & Beane.

On Feb. 21, 2024, a letter to the court from Hammer indicated “I am moving to formally withdraw my case because I need to serve a notice of claim on the Secretary of State first.”

By Feb. 27 of this year, Hammer had again filed a civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, now listed as “MELANIE HAMMER, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF BEDFORD NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING BEDFORD NEW YORK, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEDFORD NEW YORK, ALBERT CIRACO, ERIC GORDON, and ROBERT ZITT, Defendants.” 

The suit, originally assigned to Judge Lewis J. Liman, was reassigned to Judge Cathy Seibel, and on March 22, Hammer was granted permission to engage in electronic case filing.

Hammer subsequently has filed a number of motions and requests, which Seibel has rejected. Most notably, on June 2, Seibel ruled against Hammer’s request for a change of venue from White Plains to Foley Square based on “deep-rooted political and professional connections between several key witnesses and the local government and legal community in Westchester County.” Seibel dismissed allegations that she had ongoing professional relationships with Gordon and with former Westchester County judge and District Attorney Anthony Scarpino Jr.

“The Court understands, however, that two defendants in this case are lawyers at Keane & Beane and that Plaintiff’s tenant in the apartment at the center of this controversy was a close relative of Scarpino,” wrote Seibel, before concluding, “Plaintiff does not even allege, let alone support, that the undersigned has any connection to either Keane & Beane or Scarpino, and she does not explain how any connections they may have to others in the area who have no role in this case would lead any reasonable person to suspect impropriety.”

Additionally, wrote Seibel, “Plaintiff further contends that transfer is warranted because she maintains a business office and law practice in Brooklyn and thus Manhattan would be more convenient for her. The Court cannot fathom that claim, as Plaintiff’s residence is in Westchester.”

Concluded Seibel, “It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Plaintiff is judge-shopping.”

Hammer has continued to file motions, which have continued to be rejected by Seibel. On Aug. 14, Seibel ruled against a motion for extension of time, saying, “Plaintiff requests that the Court defer ruling on whether to permit a sur-reply until she receives internal emails in response to a FOIL request. As Defendant points out, no request for a sur-reply has been submitted.” A sur-reply is an additional response submitted by a party in a legal case after the initial motion and its responses have been fully discussed.

And this Tuesday, Aug. 19, Seibel issued a ruling regarding a request to issue a “subpoena for emails that she alleges contain Brady information, the withholding of which is the basis for her thirteenth cause of action, alleging a Brady violation against Defendant Robert Zitt, who prosecuted building violations against her.” Said Seibel, “The Court does not understand how emails (or portions thereof) that Plaintiff has not seen can plausibly be alleged to contain Brady information,” saying such an order would be “absent reasonableness or good cause.”

The case continues.

Jeff Morris has been a reporter for The Recorder since its inception, and previously wrote for The Record-Review, The Lewisboro Ledger, and business periodicals, and even edited jokes for Reader’s Digest.