Archbishopric of the City of New York v. City of New York

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before KUPFERMAN
• Citation: Archbishopric of the City of New York v. City of New York, 440 N.Y.S.2d 650, 82 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
• Decision Date: 25 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 1,1,2
• Parties: The ARCHBISHOPRIC OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ActionLITTLE ANTIGONE THEATRES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Action

Page 650

440 N.Y.S.2d 650

82 A.D.2d 777

The ARCHBISHOPRIC OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Action No. 1

LITTLE ANTIGONE THEATRES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Action No. 2

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

June 25, 1981.

J. Ferraro, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent in Action No. 1.

K. G. Schwartz for plaintiff-respondent in Action No. 2.

I. Genn, New York City, for defendants-appellants.

Before KUPFERMAN, J. P., and SULLIVAN, MARKEWICH, BLOOM and FEIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 3, 1980 after a non-jury trial in favor of the plaintiff Archbishopric of the City of New York (Archbishopric) in the sum of $107,922.05 plus interest and costs, unanimously modified on the law and facts to reduce the amount of the judgment to $97,922.05, plus interest and costs, and otherwise affirmed without costs.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ascione, J.), entered January 5, 1981 after a non-jury trial in favor of the plaintiff Little Antigone Theatres, Inc. (Antigone) in the sum of $172,077.95 plus interest and costs, unanimously modified on the law and the facts to reduce the amount of the judgment to $65,577.95, plus interest and costs, and otherwise affirmed without costs.

The judgments appealed from were granted to the plaintiffs against the City of New York by reason of the improper demolition of premises 225-227 East 13th Street, New York City, by the City of New York. The property originally owned by the Archbishopric was improved by a one-story brick and stone church building which was sold by the Archbishopric to Antigone on December 23, 1969, for the sum of $155,000, of which $120,000 consisted of a purchase money mortgage. On May 19, 1970, the Board of Standards and Appeals granted Antigone's application to convert the property to a theatre conditioned "on the substantial construction being completed within one-year from the date" of the resolution. Renovation work began in 1970 and continued through the beginning of 1972. In June 1972 the City demolished the building upon the ground that it was a nuisance and unsafe. No notice of the intention to demolish was ever served upon the Archbishopric, the mortgagee. In April 1972, a notice addressed to Antigone was served on respondent Harry Joe Brown, Jr. (Brown) the president of Antigone, asserting that the building was unsafe and required to be removed or made safe. Brown allegedly called the Department of Buildings and stated that the premises were not in a deteriorating condition and there were then pending negotiations with the Department of Health to establish a methadone clinic on the premises.

It is conceded by the City that although unsafe building reports were filed respecting the building, the usual "unsafe building procedures" of ordering a survey and issuing a precept on notice preliminary to obtaining a Supreme Court order to demolish a building declared to be unsafe were not followed. The Archbishopric, the mortgagee of record, was not notified. The City urged that the building was a nuisance and therefore susceptible of summary demolition. However, the record is clear that substantial periods of time were allowed to elapse between the filing of the notice and the letter notice to Brown and the actual demolition. No notice of the actual demolition was served on anyone.

After a non-jury trial of both cases together, in which it appeared that the City's own records with respect to the inspection of the premises were inconsistent with each other and had been altered, Trial Term concluded that judgment should be granted in favor of the plaintiffs against the City upon the ground that the City had not established that the building was a nuisance requiring summary demolition, or that appropriate notice had been served. It was found that the unsafe building procedures which would result in a Supreme Court order directing...