Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: LANDMARK WEST!, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. Amanda M. BURDEN, Chair of the New York City Planning Commission, et al., Respondents-Respondents. Preservation League of New York State and National Trust for Historic Preservation, Amici Curiae.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered April 23, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent New York City Planning Commission approving the transfer of the building located at 2 Columbus Circle to respondent New York City Economic Development Corporation for subsequent sale to respondent Museum of Arts and Design, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record discloses that before issuing its negative declaration respecting the environmental impact of the proposed property transfer, the lead agency took the required “hard look” at the relevant areas of environmental concern and made a reasoned elaboration of its findings (see Matter of Spitzer v. Farrell, 100 N.Y.2d 186, 190, 761 N.Y.S.2d 137, 791 N.E.2d 394 [2003]; Akpan v. Koch, 75 N.Y.2d 561, 570, 555 N.Y.S.2d 16, 554 N.E.2d 53 [1990] ). In performing the statutorily mandated environmental review, it was appropriate for the lead agency to seek input from agencies with relevant expertise, including the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (see Matter of Soho Alliance v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 95 N.Y.2d 437, 442, 718 N.Y.S.2d 261, 741 N.E.2d 106 [2000] ), which had twice declined to designate the property a landmark. The record does not support the contention that the lead agency improperly delegated its environmental review responsibilities to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, nor is there merit to the contention that the Landmarks Preservation Commission was obligated to hold a public hearing before declining to calendar a request for the property's designation as a landmark (see 63 RCNY § 1-02). Petitioner's challenge to the designation of the Deputy Mayor's Office as the lead agency was improperly raised for the first time in reply, and we decline to reach it (see Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Morse Shoe Co., 218 A.D.2d 624, 625-626, 630 N.Y.S.2d 1003 [1995] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 24, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)