Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Committee for Environmentally Sound Development v. Amsterdam Avenue Redevelopment Associates Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty, 1/17/19 (Perry, J.).
Community groups brought an article 78 proceeding challenging a determination by the Board of Standards and Appeals upholding issuance of a building permit for a 55-story tower at 200 Amsterdam Avenue. The court granted the petition, holding that the parcel on which the partially-built tower sits is not a zoning lot within the meaning of the New York City Zoning Resolution.
Developer assembled a parcel consisting of portions of various tax lots to create a 39-sided lot. Developer sought a building permit for the tower, contending that the lot constituted a zoning lot within the meaning of section 12-10 of the Zoning Resolution. Developer relied on a 1978 memo by the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Buildings (the Minkin Memo) . The Minkin Memo interpreted the zoning resolution to permit a zoning lot consisting of one or more “tax lots or parts of tax lots.” In 2017, the Department of Buildings issued a building permit. Community groups appeals to the Board of Standards and Appeals. A majority of the City Council, the Manhattan Borough President, the City Comptroller, and a variety of other groups supported the appeal. DOB presented a letter reversing its position and concluding that the Minkin memo had been incorrect, but seeking affirmance of its determination because of general reliance on the Minkin memo over a 40-year period. BSA upheld DOB's grant of the permit, and community groups brought this article 78 proceeding.
In granting the petition, the court concluded that the BSA had acted unreasonably in ignoring DOB's determination that the Minkin interpretation was incorrect, and concluded that the developer had not acquired vested rights nor was the city estopped from enforcing the language of the zoning resolution. The court remanded to the BSA for a redetermination in light of the correct legal interpretation of the ordinance, which would not permit a zoning lot composed of partial tax lots.
|ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.