From Parking Lot Paving to Courtroom Victory: How a Local Journalist’s Exposé Sparked New Rochelle’s Decade Long Fight Against La Rocca Encroachment

WHITE PLAINS, NY (November 14, 2025) — A decade-long legal saga that began with a local journalist’s 2015 report on a contractor illegally paving over city parkland behind the Sidney Frank Skate Park culminated this week in a Westchester County Supreme Court ruling ordering the removal of a sprawling encroachment from public property.

Supreme Court Justice David S. Zuckerman’s Nov. 5 decision in City of New Rochelle v. Flavio La Rocca et al. (Index No. 54190/2016) found that Flavio La Rocca and his companies violated New Rochelle City Code § 111-38 by extending their contractor’s yard at 435 Fifth Avenue approximately 1,743 feet onto East Street, a parcel deeded to the city in 1914 and recorded in 1919.

Flavio La Rocca and a crew of workers leveling trees and greenery on public land adjacent to City Park on May 16, 2025

The case traces its roots to May 16, 2015, when Robert Cox, publisher of the investigative news site Talk of the Sound, documented Flavio La Rocca and a crew of workers leveling trees and greenery on public land adjacent to City Park, then grading and paving the area with asphalt chunks to create an unauthorized parking lot. Cox’s photos, videos, and articles in his eight-part “Who is Flavio La Rocca?” series detailed how La Rocca had repeatedly misappropriated city property for private business use, including encroachments onto East Street and even Clear Channel Communications land across Fifth Avenue for storing equipment and vehicles.

Cox was deposed as a witness in the case, with his reporting submitted as evidence.

“This would appear to be a clear cut case of a criminal act and yet no criminal charges have been brought,” Cox wrote in Part VIII of the series, noting La Rocca’s crew using excavators, pay-loaders, and dump trucks while he himself hid behind a truck upon spotting Cox.

The incident amplified earlier concerns raised by Cox about La Rocca’s operations. La Rocca and his wife Maria had vocally opposed the city’s 2014 plan to relocate its Department of Public Works yard to East Street via eminent domain, citing taxpayer burdens and neighborhood impacts like increased traffic and risks to children playing nearby. Yet Cox’s reporting revealed La Rocca’s own yard generated more heavy truck traffic than the proposed city facility, while he exploited confusion over century-old property lines—stemming from a 1907 subdivision map—to build stone walls, concrete slabs, jersey barriers, and tree screens encroaching up to several feet onto city land.

In Part II, Cox mapped the encroachments, calling for the city to order removal of illegal structures, including a hidden industrial sifter allegedly operated without permits.

City officials, including then-Corporation Counsel Mark Blanchard, responded swiftly to Cox’s exposé, announcing intentions to “aggressively pursue civil and criminal charges against Flavio La Rocca” for trespassing, destruction of public property, and misappropriation. The city had previously issued notices demanding removal of the East Street encroachment on June 22, 2009, and Nov. 18, 2015—after Cox’s reporting—but received no compliance.

On April 1, 2016, New Rochelle filed the lawsuit, accusing the La Rocas and their firms—Flavio La Rocca & Sons Inc. (a.k.a. F. La Rocca & Sons Inc.) and FMLR Realty Management LLC—of “brazen misappropriation of city property for their private personal and business use and their disregard for the boundaries of the city’s right of way.”

The La Rocas had purchased the Fifth Avenue property in 2002 and transferred it to FMLR in 2008.

The litigation dragged on for nearly a decade, with cross-motions for summary judgment decided in January 2023 by Justice William J. Giacomo, who dismissed some claims but allowed the core East Street encroachment violation under City Code § 111-38 to proceed to trial.

Cox visited East Street on September 24, 2025 to see La Rocca was still encroaching.

Cox visited East Street on September 24, 2025 to see the fence blocking La Rocca’s “parking lot” was still in place.

A bench trial before Zuckerman on Sept. 10, 2025, featured stipulated facts, expert witnesses, and post-trial briefs. On Nov. 3, 2025, the parties agreed the sole remedy was an injunction.

Zuckerman ruled the code’s broad language—“no portion of a building or other structure shall encroach upon or project into any street, alley, park or other public property without a special permit”—applied regardless of whether East Street was formally adopted as a public street, citing implied acceptance through city utilities, snow plowing, and emergency use.

Defendants argued the city never formally accepted East Street under General City Law § 34 and lacked proof of deed delivery, but Zuckerman rejected these, noting the 1926 statute’s non-retroactivity and presumptive evidence from the deed’s recording.

“In sum, the court finds that Plaintiff owns East Street as public property,” the judge wrote, ordering removal within 30 days of service—personal for the individuals, via Secretary of State and certified mail for the companies. Statutory penalties could exceed $245,000 based on the 2009 notice.

La Rocca’s attorney, Stuart S. Zisholtz, fired back at Cox’s reporting with a May 2015 cease-and-desist letter accusing the articles of being “false and malicious” and demanding they stop, but Cox continued publishing.

The case, now resolved after nine years in court, underscores the impact of local journalism in unearthing encroachments that evaded city notice for decades.

Notice of entry was filed Nov. 10, 2025, starting the 30-day appeal clock under CPLR 5513(a).

THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS: City of New Rochelle v. Flavio La Rocca, Maria La Rocca, Flavio La Rocca & Sons, Inc., and FMLR Realty Management LLC (Index No. 54190/2016)

The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, issued a Decision After Trial on November 5, 2025, in the matter of City of New Rochelle v. Flavio La Rocca, Maria La Rocca, Flavio La Rocca & Sons, Inc., and FMLR Realty Management LLC (Index No. 54190/2016), with Notice of Entry filed on November 10, 2025. Following a bench trial presided over by Hon. David S. Zuckerman, J.S.C., on September 10, 2025, the court ruled in favor of the City of New Rochelle, finding that the defendants’ contractor’s yard at 435 Fifth Avenue encroaches approximately 1,743 feet onto East Street in violation of New Rochelle City Code § 111-38. The defendants had purchased the property in October 2002 and transferred it to FMLR Realty Management LLC in January 2008, using the site as a contractor’s yard that extends onto East Street—a parcel created by a 1907 subdivision map, deeded to the City via quitclaim in 1914, and recorded in 1919. Although the City never passed a formal resolution adopting East Street as a public street, the court determined that it constitutes public property based on the plain language of the ordinance, which prohibits encroachments onto “any street, alley, park or other public property” without a special permit.

The court applied settled principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that the legislature’s use of the disjunctive “or” and the term “any” was intended to give the provision broad effect, rendering irrelevant the defendants’ argument that East Street is not a formally accepted public street. Citing People v. Thomas (33 NY3d 1 [2019]) and Bank of America, N.A. v. Kessler (39 NY3d 317 [2023]), the court held that the starting point of interpretation is the statutory text itself, and where the natural signification of the words is definite and involves no absurdity, there is no room for construction. Public property, as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999), includes community-owned land not restricted to individual use, and the court found that the City holds East Street in such capacity, as evidenced by the installation and maintenance of water mains, sewer lines, and utility poles beneath and alongside it, regular snow plowing by municipal crews, and use by emergency vehicles—acts constituting implied acceptance over more than a century.

The defendants contended that General City Law § 34(4)(a), enacted in 1926, required formal legislative acceptance to render a platted street public, and that the City’s failure to adopt East Street while accepting five other streets in the same subdivision defeated ownership. The court rejected this argument on multiple grounds: the statute is not retroactive, having been enacted seven years after the 1919 deed recording; even if applicable, the distinction between a public street and public property is immaterial under the ordinance; and the recording of the quitclaim deed raises a presumption of delivery under Sweetland v. Buell (154 NY 541 [1900]) and People ex rel. Millard v. Donovan (228 AD 596 [3d Dept 1930]). The court further distinguished Holdane v. Village of Cold Spring (21 NY 474 [1860]), noting that it addressed incomplete dedication rather than a fully executed and recorded quitclaim deed. Accordingly, the court concluded that the City owns East Street as public property and that the undisputed encroachment violates § 111-38.

Having found for the plaintiff, and with the parties having stipulated during oral argument on November 3, 2025, that the sole remedy sought was injunctive relief, the court issued a permanent injunction. The plaintiff is directed to serve the Decision After Trial within 20 days—upon the individual defendants by personal delivery and upon the corporate defendants via the New York Secretary of State and certified mail, return receipt requested, to their principal places of business—and to file proof of service. Within 30 days thereafter, the defendants must remove any portion of the construction yard encroaching onto East Street. The court denied all other requested relief and noted that the foregoing constitutes its opinion, decision, and order. The Notice of Entry, filed by plaintiff’s counsel Allison Rodriguez, Esq., of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, commences the statutory period for appeals under CPLR 5513(a). As of November 14, 2025, the defendants face a firm deadline for compliance or risk contempt proceedings, with any appeal unlikely to succeed given the decision’s grounding in plain statutory meaning, presumptions of deed delivery, and evidence of long-standing municipal use.

Why Did New Rochelle Dropped Six Figures to Reclaim a Forgotten Street?

The city spent an estimated $100,000 or more over nine years to force removal of a contractor’s yard that encroached 1,743 feet onto East Street, but the fight was never about the land’s current value. Justice David S. Zuckerman’s November 5, 2025, ruling locked in a principle that protects every piece of public property in New Rochelle.

The decision turned on New Rochelle City Code § 111-38, which bars structures from projecting into “any street, alley, park or other public property” without a permit. Zuckerman wrote that the words “any” and “or” give the statute “a broad effect,” making it irrelevant whether East Street is a formally accepted public street. “Whether East Street is a public street as opposed to public property is irrelevant,” the judge stated.

That single sentence sets precedent. New Rochelle holds dozens of “paper streets” from old subdivision maps like the 1907 plan that created East Street. Without this victory, owners could argue unaccepted streets are fair game for fences, sheds or parking. The city would lose control over future corridors for utilities, parks or roads.

Inaction carried steeper risks

The defendants occupied the strip since at least 2002. Under New York law, open and continuous use for 10 years can ripen into adverse possession against municipal land in some cases. “Plaintiff owns East Street as public property,” Zuckerman ruled, citing the 1914 quitclaim deed recorded in 1919, plus city maintenance of water mains, sewer lines, utility poles, snow plowing and emergency vehicle access.

The city issued removal demands in 2009 and 2015 but saw no compliance. Filing suit in 2016 stopped the adverse-possession clock.

“In sum, the court finds that Plaintiff owns East Street as public property,” the decision states. “Since there is no issue that Defendants’ construction yard encroaches on it, the court finds for Plaintiff.”

The injunction orders removal within 30 days of service, with the city required to serve the decision within 20 days. Notice of Entry was filed November 10, 2025.

This article was drafted with the aid of Grok, an AI tool by xAI, under the direction and editing of Robert Cox to ensure accuracy and adherence to journalistic standards.

Debate Over Relocation of New Rochelle Public Works Yard Heats Up(12/14/2014)

Who is Flavio La Rocca? – Part I (5/23/2015)

Who is Flavio La Rocca? – Part II(5/23/2015)

Who is Flavio La Rocca? – Part III(5/25/2015)

Who is Flavio La Rocca? – Part IV(5/26/2015)

Who is Flavio LaRocca? Part V(5/27/2015)

Who is Flavio La Rocca? – Part VI(6/9/2015)

Who is Flavio La Rocca? – Part VII(6/20/2015)

GETTING RESULTS: City of New Rochelle Initiates Enforcement Actions Against LaRocca “Parking Lot”(6/23/2015)

Who is Flavio La Rocca? – Part VIII(11/9/2015)

GETTING RESULTS: La Rocca Served with Removal Notice for East Street Violations (1/26/2016)

GETTING RESULTS: City Charges Flowers Park Tree Killer with Misappropriation and Encroachment(4/1/2016)