Development

The Trust agreed to lease property with the Hudson River Park for construction of a proposed Pier 55, a public access pier within the Hudson River. The proposed lessee, Pier55 Inc., would use the park for revenue-generating performances, but would ensure that 51% of all performances would be free or low-cost. City Club challenged the lease, contending that the Trust had not complied with SEQRA, that the lease violated the public trust doctrine, and that the lease violated the Hudson River Park Act. Supreme Court declared that the lease did not violate the statute or the public trust doctrine, and dismissed the SEQRA challenge. City Club appealed.

In affirming, the Appellate Division first concluded that the Trust had taken a hard look at the project's environmental impact and had provided a reasoned elaboration for its negative declaration. The court indicated that the Trust had considered the cumulative impact of the Pier 55 project and the nearby Pier 57 project. The court then rejected the claim that the Pier 55 project violated the Hudson River Park's Estuarine Sanctuary provisions. The court cited 2013 amendments to the statute that referred to a redesign of Pier 54 outside its historic footprint, making it clear that the legislatures was authorizing a new, redesigned structure. (The new Pier 55 would overlap the old Pier 54). Finally, the court turned to the public trust claim. First, the court questioned whether the public trust doctrine applies to state, as opposed to municipal, parkland, noting the absence of case authority to resolve the issue.

But the court then indicated that even if the doctrine were applicable, the proposed project would not constitute a violation. Neither the use of parks for revenue generating events nor charging of fees for park facilities violates the doctrine, so long as overall public access is not unduly constrained. Here, the new Pier 55 would permit public park uses most of the time, and at least 51% of performances would be free or low cost.

Lease to Pier 55 Complied With SEQRA

In re City Club of New York, Inc. v. Hudson River Park Trust, Inc.
NYLJ 9/9/16, p. 19, col. 6
AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)

In a hybrid action/article 78 proceeding challenging the Hudson River Park Trust's decision to lease property to Pier55 Inc., City Club of New York appealed from Supreme Court's denial of its petition and dismissal of the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the lease did not violate the public trust doctrine and that the Trust had complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

The Trust agreed to lease property with the Hudson River Park for construction of a proposed Pier 55, a public access pier within the Hudson River. The proposed lessee, Pier55 Inc., would use the park for revenue-generating performances, but would ensure that 51% of all performances would be free or low-cost. City Club challenged the lease, contending that the Trust had not complied with SEQRA, that the lease violated the public trust doctrine, and that the lease violated the Hudson River Park Act. Supreme Court declared that the lease did not violate the statute or the public trust doctrine, and dismissed the SEQRA challenge. City Club appealed.

In affirming, the Appellate Division first concluded that the Trust had taken a hard look at the project's environmental impact and had provided a reasoned elaboration for its negative declaration. The court indicated that the Trust had considered the cumulative impact of the Pier 55 project and the nearby Pier 57 project. The court then rejected the claim that the Pier 55 project violated the Hudson River Park's Estuarine Sanctuary provisions. The court cited 2013 amendments to the statute that referred to a redesign of Pier 54 outside its historic footprint, making it clear that the legislatures was authorizing a new, redesigned structure. (The new Pier 55 would overlap the old Pier 54). Finally, the court turned to the public trust claim. First, the court questioned whether the public trust doctrine applies to state, as opposed to municipal, parkland, noting the absence of case authority to resolve the issue.

But the court then indicated that even if the doctrine were applicable, the proposed project would not constitute a violation. Neither the use of parks for revenue generating events nor charging of fees for park facilities violates the doctrine, so long as overall public access is not unduly constrained. Here, the new Pier 55 would permit public park uses most of the time, and at least 51% of performances would be free or low cost.