The Ambassador Files Suit to Maintain the Ethical Culture Society Claiming They Received No Notification of Application to Raze It

In recent years, developers frequently file applications with the Committee for Historic Preservation (CHP) to demolish Scarsdale homes in order to replace them with larger manses. And often these applications are approved with the committee finding that the homes do not meet the Village’s criteria for preservation. When the CHP does deny the applicant permission to demolish a home, the applicants can appeal the Village Board of Trustees in the hope of winning approval to raze the property.

However, a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of Westchester on February 24, 2026 presents a new twist on the preservation laws. In this case, the Committee for Historic Preservation approved the demolition of a property, and now the owner of the facility next door is petitioning to annul that decision.

The case involves an application filed by Sunrise Senior Living to take down the Ethical Culture Society on Saxon Woods Road, in order to replace it with a senior living facility. The property is adjacent to The Ambassador, another senior living facility that would presumably compete with the new entrant.

After the Committee for Historic Preservation approved the demolition in October, lawyers for the Ambassador tried to appeal the decision to the Village Board of Trustees. Keane and Beane, attorneys for the Village of Scarsdale said that Sunrise does not have the right to appeal the decision because they do not own the property.

A letter from Village Attorney Nicholas M. Ward-Willis said, “….The property that is the subject of the application, and therefore the "property in question" is 7 Saxon Woods Road. Mr. Sharma is not the owner of that property, but rather the owner of an adjacent parcel located at 9 Saxon Woods Road. Accordingly, while Mr. Sharma may consider himself aggrieved by the Decision, he does not meet the definition of "owner" under the Village Code and therefore lacks standing to appeal the CHP's Decision to the Board of Trustees.”

Attorneys for Sunrise also filed a FOIL request for recordings of the CHP meetings and meeting notices, claiming they were not notified of the public hearing. On January 2, 2026 the Village responded, “Scarsdale Village Code § 182-3E(3) provides the CHP “may hold a public hearing on a completed application when it deems the same to be in the public interest.” Thus, the CHP did not hold “public hearings” on the dates in question because such hearings are not required to be held.”

The Village responded with copies of the mailing labels advising neighbors of the CHP meeting. But the one for the Ambassador was sent to their loan servicer in Houston, Texas.

Lawyers for the Ambassador filed on February 24 in the Supreme Court of NY County of Westchester saying the CHP decision was made “in violation of the open meetings law.” It says, “Petitioners received no notice of and did not otherwise have knowledge of the planned demolition until the COA was already approved.” “As a result of being illegally denied notice, Petitioners were deprived of their procedural due process rights to participate in the CHP meetings, present comments, and raise their concerns regarding the proposed demolition of this beloved structure.”

Furthermore they claimed the destruction will have “Immediate direct adverse impacts” on the Ambassador’s “property value, aesthetic environment and legally protected interest and will negatively affect the quality of life of the Ambassador’s residents.”

They also claim that there were no records of the CHP meetings and minutes. “In addition to depriving Petitioners notice of the CHP public meeting, Respondents failed to maintain an audible record of the CHP deliberations, did not publish any articulated findings or minutes…”

The complaint charges the Village of Scarsdale with failing to provide notice of the meeting to the news media saying “New York's Open Meetings Law establishes mandatory dual notice requirements for public meetings. OML § 104(1). The statute explicitly provides that "public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given or electronically transmitted to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting." Id. Courts have interpreted these requirements as conjunctive, meaning both forms of notice are mandatory, not alternatives. See, e.g., White v. Battaglia, 79 A.D.2d 880, 881 (4th Dep’t 1980)….Failure to provide notice to the news media more than one week in advance of the September and October 2025 CHP meetings violated OML § 104.”

The story was in fact covered on Scarsdale10583, though there was no “official notification” posted on the site. You can see the article here.

Letter from Neighbors

The Ambassador is not the only party objecting to the demolition. Scarsdale10583 received a letter from neighbors on Saxon Woods Road objecting to the demolition and construction of another 125 units.

The letter says, “Are you aware that the Ethical Society and The Ambassador has flooded 4x in the past five year, with the 2022 flood causing 8 months of remediation at The Ambassador. Our houses have flooded more than ever since The Ambassador was built. There is still debris from the flood in the Saxon Woods creek (umbrellas, benches, clothes and other junk.) How do they plan to fix our flood problem when the sheer addition will make it worse. It cost me $10K to remove mold from my basement.”

“The parking situation caused by The Ambassador is already dangerous. And despite many calls to the Village nothing has been done. Cars are parked on the side of the road and emergency vehicles cannot arrive to our neighborhood.”

“The Ethical Society was once part of the fabric of our quiet neighborhood and that was ruined 15 years ago when the Ambassador was built. Amba promised 200 trees to hide the commercial look. A promise he failed to deliver and he was allowed to neglect on.”

“Families have resided here for 50 plus years and our once quiet neighborhood is no more. The addition of 125 more units will destroy it.  Please help us.”