Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(the town supervisor wins)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of Zhang v. Feiner

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Sep 30, 2026
Docket
2025-12926
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05545
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 2, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. 1st instance (Supreme Court, Westchester County): granted motion to vacate demands for bills of particulars, denied motion to strike the petition.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (the town supervisor wins)

TL;DR

  1. 1Residents pushed to form a new village called Edgemont. The town supervisor rejected it, saying they didn't meet the legal requirements.
  2. 2The court the residents' appeal, agreeing that the petition didn't follow the correct procedures.
  3. 3The appellate court found that the residents' issues with the original ruling couldn't be appealed directly.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Did the proposed village of Edgemont meet legal requirements for incorporation?

    Holding · The court found the petition did not comply with standards, backing the supervisor's decision.

  2. 2

    Was an appeal possible for this type of order?

    Holding · No direct appeal was allowed due to procedural rules, and any issues could be reviewed later with the entire judgment.

Why it matters

This affects how new villages can be created in New York, ensuring they meet strict legal standards before incorporation.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Could a new village in New York be on the map?

  1. 1Residents want to form the Village of Edgemont, but the town supervisor says they didn't follow the rules.
  2. 2The supervisor's decision blocked the new village, claiming the petition didn't meet legal standards.
  3. 3A court now must decide if the petition complied with New York's village formation laws.

Did the petition for the new Village of Edgemont follow all the legal rules?

Be the first juror

Parties

  • Appellant

    Matter of Zhang

  • Appellee

    Feiner

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Matter of Zhang v Feiner 2026 NY Slip Op 05545 September 30, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Fan Zhang, et al., respondents, v Paul Feiner, in his official capacity as Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, et al., appellants. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on September 30, 2026 2025-12926, (Index No. 74054/24) Mark C. Dillon, J.P. Linda Christopher Barry E. Warhit Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ. Cozen O'Connor, New York, NY (Jerry H. Goldfeder and Kerry T. Cooperman of counsel), for appellants. Bernstein & Associates, PLLC, Scarsdale, NY (Robert B. Bernstein of counsel), for respondents. [*1] DECISION & ORDER In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent/defendant Paul Feiner, in his official capacity as Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, dated September 27, 2024, which, after a hearing, determined that a petition for the incorporation of the proposed Village of Edgemont did not comply with the requirements of Village Law article 2, and action for a judgment declaring that the petition for the incorporation of the proposed Village of Edgemont complies with the requirements of Village Law article 2, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Melissa A. Loehr, J.), dated September 24, 2025. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the petitioners/plaintiffs' cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 408 and 3042(e) to vacate demands for bills of particulars, and denied the respondents/defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3042 and 3126 to strike the petition/complaint. ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The appeal from the order must be dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an intermediate order entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see id. § 5701[b][1]), and because any possibility of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of an order and judgment in the matter (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the order and judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; Matter of Zhang v Feiner, ___ AD3d ___ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2026-03201; decided herewith]). DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court
View on CourtListener