IN RE: DESIS RISING UP AND MOVING et al. (2024)

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition to vacate the New York City Districting Commission's November 1, 2022 certification adopting new City Council districts, and for an order instructing the Districting Committee to amend its 2022 district maps to apply the criteria set forth in New York City Charter § 52(1)(b) to be consistent with a “Unity Map” prepared by the Unity Map Coalition, combining portions of the Richmond Hill and South Ozone Park neighborhoods, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The construction given New York City Charter § 52(1)(b) by the Districting Commission, the agency charged with its implementation, is not irrational or unreasonable.  We therefore defer to it (see generally Matter of MSK Realty Interests, LLC v. Department of Fin. of the City of N.Y., 170 A.D.3d 459, 460, 95 N.Y.S.3d 191 [1st Dept. 2019], appeal dismissed 33 N.Y.3d 1057, 103 N.Y.S.3d 351, 127 N.E.3d 309 [2019]).  We are satisfied that the record in this case establishes that the Districting Commission implemented the requirements of New York City Charter § 52.  The Districting Commission's decisions to draw the district lines as it did, and then to certify its plan, were not arbitrary, irrational, or inconsistent with the Charter's mandate (see Matter of Brooklyn Hgts. Assn. v. Macchiarola, 82 N.Y.2d 101, 106, 603 N.Y.S.2d 790, 623 N.E.2d 1140 [1993]).  Contrary to petitioners’ contention, we find that the Districting Commission had a rational basis for rejecting the proposed alternative map.  In light of the flexibility contemplated by the Charter when executing the redistricting process, the Districting Commission had a rational basis to consider other listed criteria (id.).