Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a dispute over West Side development, the First Department handed a victory to developers seeking to build a 39-story building on the block between West 65th and West 66th Street, and Columbus Avenue and Central Park West. (City Club of New York v. New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, 202 WL 3083700). Together with the First Department's previous decision in favor of the developer in the 200 Amsterdam Avenue case (see, Paul D. Selver and James P. Power, "Appellate Division Overturns Supreme Court Order to Partially Demolish 55-Story Building" in this newsletter's LJN sibling New York Real Estate Law Reporter, May 2021), the City Club case highlights the extreme deference appellate courts accord Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) determinations interpreting New York City's extraordinarily complex zoning scheme.
The proposed project includes a synagogue on the lower floors and 130 condominiums on the upper floors. Part of the project site lies in a C4-7 district while the remainder lies in an R8 district. Although the two districts have different density limits, the total permitted floor area for the project is 548,543 square feet, a number not in dispute in the case. The dispute centered on two other features of the project: first,, the distribution of square footage between the building's tower and the building's base, and second, the inclusion of four floors for mechanical equipment with a combined height of 198 feet. The developer located much of the project's square footage to a narrow tower above the building's base. The result is a 775-foot high building that provoked opposition by many in the neighborhood.
Because the project is located in the Special Lincoln Square District, the project is subject to special provisions applicable within that district. The first legal issue revolves around the interplay between two of those provisions: section 82-34 of the resolution, which governs bulk distribution, and section 82-36 of the resolution, which deal with tower coverage. Section 82-34 requires that at least 60 percent of the total permitted floor area be located below a height of 150 feet from curb level. That provision applies both in a C4-7 district and in an R-8 district. Section 82-36 requires that a tower shall occupy between 30 and 40% of the zoning lot. The tower regulations, however, apply only to the C4-7 portion of the lot; towers are not permitted in an R-8 district.
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 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.
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.
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.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
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.