Z&S Partners David Cooper and Jody Cross secured three decisions from the Appellate Division, Second Department in the Hampshire Recreation, LLC v. Village of Mamaroneck litigation stemming from the Planning Board’s denial of Hampshire’s residential subdivision application in 2020. In three decisions issued together on September 2, 2026, the Second Department upheld the Supreme Court’s rejection of two motions to dismiss filed by the Village, as well as an order granting a motion to compel discovery filed by Hampshire.

Hampshire filed the lawsuit after the Village Planning Board adopted negative SEQRA Findings and denied Hampshire’s zoning-compliant proposal to subdivide the County Club property into a Planned Unit Development consisting of 105 residential units and a 9-hole golf course. After studying 16 different development alternatives for the property during a 5-year long SEQRA review process, the Planning Board claimed that it could not approve a residential use of the Club’s property “regardless of the available alternatives.”  The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination that Hampshire’s allegations support a regulatory taking claim under the Penn Central test, particularly given various emails and other evidence showing the Planning Board has acted in bad faith. The Court also found that this evidence substantiated Hampshire’s claim that returning to the Planning Board for consideration of any residential development plan would be “futile” given the Planning Board’s bias against the project.

The Appellate Division also found the Village improperly withhold discovery from Hampshire as protected under alleged “legislative or deliberative process privileges.” The Court, therefore, upheld the lower court’s order directing that such material be disclosed.