Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court of Appeals Upholds Privatization of Interior Landmark
The New York City Landmarks Preservation Law authorizes the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) to designate interior landmarks as well as exterior landmarks. An interior site is eligible for designation only if the public has access to the site, but once the LPC has designated the interior landmark, can the LPC authorize its owner to close the landmark to public access? In Save America's Clocks, Inc. v. City of New York, NYLJ 3/29/19, p. 25., col. 1., a divided Court of Appeals answered "yes."
The Landmarks Law
In 1973, an amendment to the Landmarks Preservation Law authorized the LPC to designate as an interior landmark "[a]n interior, or part thereof, any part of which is thirty years old or older, and which is customarily open or accessible to the public, or to which the public is customarily invited, and which has a special historical or aesthetic interest or value." (New York City Administrative Code, section 25-302[m]).
The Designation and the Application
In 1987, the LPC designated 346 Broadway, a building designed by McKim, Mead & White and completed in the 1890s, as a landmark. The LPC designated some of the building's features as interior landmarks. In particular, the LPC designated the clock tower, a large mechanical clock driven by a 1,000 pound weight which strikes the hours with a hammer and a 5,000 pound bell. In total, the LPC landmarked 20,000 square feet out of the building's total interior space of 420,000 square feet. At the time of the designation, the City of New York owned the building, but the city sold the building to a private developer in 2013. The developer sought to convert the building into private residences, one of which would encompass the clock tower.
In 2014, the developer sought a certificate of appropriateness for a conversion that would incorporate the clock tower into a private residence, and would transform its mechanism so that it would operate electrically rather than mechanically. During the hearing on the developer's application, the LPC's General Counsel opined that the Landmarks Law did not give the LPC power to require interior-designated spaces to remain public, and also opined that the LPC lacked power to require that the clock remain operative. After the hearing, the LPC, by a vote of 7-1, approved the developer's proposal.
Litigation
A historic preservation group, joined by other individual and institutional petitioners, then brought this article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court granted the petition, concluding that the decision to eliminate public access to the clock tower was irrational and arbitrary. Supreme Court concluded that the decision approving electrification of the clock was rational, but was invalid because it was the product, at least in part, of the General Counsel's incorrect advice that the LPC could not regulate the functioning of the clock. A divided Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that both of the LPC's decisions were irrational, and that both were affected by the General Counsel's advice. The city and the developer appealed.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.