Plaintiff, the owner of 20th century tenement buildings, brought suit to annul approval of landmark designation for the buildings. Her Article 78 proceeding was dismissed, and she appealed.
The buildings which were the subject of this suit were two in a block of 15 buildings, built in the early 1900s. They were financed by a private company that built housing for New York City’s working poor with the goal of improving living conditions from those formerly common to tenement buildings. This block was one of only two existing full block light court tenement complexes still in existence nationally, and was considered representative of the progression in types of housing available in NYC during the early 20th century. When the Landmark Preservation Committee (LPC) first acted, it designated all of both blocks as landmarks. This decision was administratively appealed, at which time a political compromise was reached whereby most of each block remained designated but a small number of buildings were excluded in order to allow new development and its associated tax revenue.
The trial court affirmed the decision resulting from the administrative appeal – the owner of the other block of tenements appealed but this block did not. The Appellate Division reversed, putting the original designation of the entire block as a historical landmark back in place on the ground that if the other buildings on the block deserved the designation, then every building on the block deserved the designation. This was deemed to be especially true in light of the failure of the Board of Estimate (BOE) to state a substantive reason for excluding the specified portion. In reaching this decision, the Appellate Division essentially said that the desire to reach an acceptable compromise, without some other supporting factors for the decision, amounted to an arbitrary decision by the board.
Because the property owner of the two buildings at issue in this case did not appeal the compromise decision, the compromise remained valid and the two buildings were exempt from the designation.
In 2004 the Community Board recommended reconsideration of extending the historic landmark designation to the two exempt buildings. The LPC agreed that the properties should be so designated and forwarded its determination to the City Planning Commission, which approved the designation unanimously. The petitioner in this case appealed this designation, saying that the previous decision by the BOE not to designate the subject properties was binding and that the City Council, which had taken over the BOE’s responsibilities after it was dissolved, could not now act in contravention to the previous decision. The petitioner also alleged that alterations she had made to the facades of the buildings, as per permits obtained from the Department of Buildings, made the properties ineligible for landmark status. The Court did not agree, noting that the alterations did not affect the visual homogeneity between buildings and those already designated. Further, it was determined that the architectural significance of the buildings extended beyond their facades to the entire design and layout of the buildings. In addition to the architectural significance, the buildings were also found to have historical and cultural significance, further diminishing the petitioner’s argument that the buildings were unworthy of landmark designation.
Aside from the high degree of deference afforded to the LPC, the Court noted that it needed only to determine that the recent decision of the LPC to designate the buildings as historic landmarks was supported by some rational basis. While administrative agencies were found to be bound by precedent, the court noted that the authority of that which was already decided is not absolute, but that an alternate decision may be reached where such decision is supported by evidence. Testimony during the designation proceeding characterized the decision to exclude the buildings as a “bad, backroom deal” and an “inappropriate politically motivated action;” this description provided rational support for the decision of the LPC to designate the buildings. Further, previous consideration of the buildings as to landmark status and the statutory authority granted to the LPC and the City Council to revisit designations, support the actions taken here with respect to the two buildings. In light of the above findings, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court to dismiss the Article 78 proceeding.
Stahl York Avenue Company LLC v. City of New York, 905 N.Y.S.2d 37 (A.D. 1 Dept. 6/24/2010)
The opinion can be accessed here
