Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Development

By ljnstaff | Law Journal Newsletters |
March 01, 2017

Air Stripper in Park

Matter of Brummel v. Town of North Hempstead
NYLJ 12/23/16, p. 33, col. 5 AppDiv, Second Dept. (memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding brought by neighbors challenging location of an air stripper in a wooded area of a park, the neighbors appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition for lack of standing. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that neighbors had not established that they use the affected portion of the park more than most other members of the public.

When the Roslyn Water District discovered that one of its wells was contaminated with Freon, making the water undrinkable, the town decided to use an aerating tower, or air stripper, to filter out the Freon. Community opposition led the District to refrain from locating the air stripper in a residential district, so the District applied to the town and county for permission to locate it in a wooded area of a park. A group of neighbors who use the wooded area of the park then brought this article 78 proceeding challenging the various government determinations with regard to placing the air stripper in the park. They contended that the government entities had failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding for lack of standing.

In affirming, the Appellate Division noted that to establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must show an environmental injury different from that suffered by the public at large, and must also show that the injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected by SEQRA. In this case, the court concluded that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that they used and enjoyed the portion of the park near the proposed air stripper more than most other members of the public. As a result, Supreme Court correctly dismissed for lack of standing.

Failure to Maintain Landmarked Building

New York City v. Seguine Bay Estates
NYLJ 1/9/17 Supreme Ct., Richmond Cty. (Straniere, J.)

In the city's action to compel landowner to comply with a Landmarks Commission order to maintain a building in good repair, the case went to trial. The court held that the city was entitled to a judgment in the amount of $8,550,000 as a result of owners' failure to maintain the building in accordance with the Landmarks Commission order.

The Manee-Seguine Homestead was built in about 1680. In 1984, the city Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) designated the homestead as a landmark. In 2009, the city Department of Buildings (DOB) issued a demolition order on a finding that the building was unsafe. DOB withdrew its order after intervention by LPC, and required only that the windows be sealed and a chain-link fence installed around the perimeter. In 2009, Intrepid Construction purchased the premises for $465,000, and on the same day transferred the premises to the current owner for no consideration. Owner sought to demolish the building and to redevelop for residential use. In 2013, DOB issued an order to correct violations, followed by an emergency declaration requiring various repairs. Owner took no steps to comply. The city commenced this action to compel landowner to maintain the premises as required by the Landmarks Preservation law. Owner answered, contending that it intended to make a hardship application establishing that it was not feasible to maintain the premises as a landmark. Owner, however, never filed such an application.

In awarding judgment to the city, the court emphasized that if owner believed that maintenance of the premises was unfeasible, owner's remedy was to make a hardship application before LPC. Owner could not, however, raise hardship as a defense to the city's action to enforce statutory duties imposed on owner. As a result, owner was liable for the statutory penalty of $5,000 a day, which now amounted to $8,550,000. The court observed, however, that the maximum penalty is the market value of the premises. As a result, the court set a date for a hearing to determine the property's value.

Air Stripper in Park

Matter of Brummel v. Town of North Hempstead
NYLJ 12/23/16, p. 33, col. 5 AppDiv, Second Dept. (memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding brought by neighbors challenging location of an air stripper in a wooded area of a park, the neighbors appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition for lack of standing. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that neighbors had not established that they use the affected portion of the park more than most other members of the public.

When the Roslyn Water District discovered that one of its wells was contaminated with Freon, making the water undrinkable, the town decided to use an aerating tower, or air stripper, to filter out the Freon. Community opposition led the District to refrain from locating the air stripper in a residential district, so the District applied to the town and county for permission to locate it in a wooded area of a park. A group of neighbors who use the wooded area of the park then brought this article 78 proceeding challenging the various government determinations with regard to placing the air stripper in the park. They contended that the government entities had failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding for lack of standing.

In affirming, the Appellate Division noted that to establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must show an environmental injury different from that suffered by the public at large, and must also show that the injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected by SEQRA. In this case, the court concluded that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that they used and enjoyed the portion of the park near the proposed air stripper more than most other members of the public. As a result, Supreme Court correctly dismissed for lack of standing.

Failure to Maintain Landmarked Building

New York City v. Seguine Bay Estates
NYLJ 1/9/17 Supreme Ct., Richmond Cty. (Straniere, J.)

In the city's action to compel landowner to comply with a Landmarks Commission order to maintain a building in good repair, the case went to trial. The court held that the city was entitled to a judgment in the amount of $8,550,000 as a result of owners' failure to maintain the building in accordance with the Landmarks Commission order.

The Manee-Seguine Homestead was built in about 1680. In 1984, the city Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) designated the homestead as a landmark. In 2009, the city Department of Buildings (DOB) issued a demolition order on a finding that the building was unsafe. DOB withdrew its order after intervention by LPC, and required only that the windows be sealed and a chain-link fence installed around the perimeter. In 2009, Intrepid Construction purchased the premises for $465,000, and on the same day transferred the premises to the current owner for no consideration. Owner sought to demolish the building and to redevelop for residential use. In 2013, DOB issued an order to correct violations, followed by an emergency declaration requiring various repairs. Owner took no steps to comply. The city commenced this action to compel landowner to maintain the premises as required by the Landmarks Preservation law. Owner answered, contending that it intended to make a hardship application establishing that it was not feasible to maintain the premises as a landmark. Owner, however, never filed such an application.

In awarding judgment to the city, the court emphasized that if owner believed that maintenance of the premises was unfeasible, owner's remedy was to make a hardship application before LPC. Owner could not, however, raise hardship as a defense to the city's action to enforce statutory duties imposed on owner. As a result, owner was liable for the statutory penalty of $5,000 a day, which now amounted to $8,550,000. The court observed, however, that the maximum penalty is the market value of the premises. As a result, the court set a date for a hearing to determine the property's value.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
COVID-19 and Lease Negotiations: Early Termination Provisions Image

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.

How Secure Is the AI System Your Law Firm Is Using? Image

What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.

Generative AI and the 2024 Elections: Risks, Realities, and Lessons for Businesses Image

GenAI's ability to produce highly sophisticated and convincing content at a fraction of the previous cost has raised fears that it could amplify misinformation. The dissemination of fake audio, images and text could reshape how voters perceive candidates and parties. Businesses, too, face challenges in managing their reputations and navigating this new terrain of manipulated content.

Authentic Communications Today Increase Success for Value-Driven Clients Image

As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.

Pleading Importation: ITC Decisions Highlight Need for Adequate Evidentiary Support Image

The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.