Citizens Committee for Hudson Valley v. Volpe

• Decision Date: 27 February 1969
• Docket Number: No. 69 Civ. 295,305 and 448.,354,69 Civ. 295
• Citation: 297 F. Supp. 804
• Parties: CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR the HUDSON VALLEY and Sierra Club, Plaintiffs, v. John VOLPE, individually and as Secretary of Transportation of the United States, Stanley S. Resor, individually and as Secretary of the Army of the United States, and William F. Cassidy, individually and as Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers of the U. S. Army, Defendants. VILLAGE OF TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. John VOLPE, individually and as Secretary of Transportation of the United States, Walter F. Hickel, individually and as Secretary of the Interior of the United States, Stanley S. Resor, individually and as Secretary of the Army of the United States, and William F. Cassidy, individually and as Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers of the U. S. Army, Defendants. CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR the HUDSON VALLEY and Sierra Club, Plaintiffs, v. J. Burch McMORRAN, individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Transportation of the State of New York, Defendants. VILLAGE OF TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. J. Burch McMORRAN, individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Transportation of the State of New York, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

297 F. Supp. 804

CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR the HUDSON VALLEY and Sierra Club, Plaintiffs, v. John VOLPE, individually and as Secretary of Transportation of the United States, Stanley S. Resor, individually and as Secretary of the Army of the United States, and William F. Cassidy, individually and as Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers of the U. S. Army, Defendants.

VILLAGE OF TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. John VOLPE, individually and as Secretary of Transportation of the United States, Walter F. Hickel, individually and as Secretary of the Interior of the United States, Stanley S. Resor, individually and as Secretary of the Army of the United States, and William F. Cassidy, individually and as Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers of the U. S. Army, Defendants.

CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR the HUDSON VALLEY and Sierra Club, Plaintiffs, v. J. Burch McMORRAN, individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Transportation of the State of New York, Defendants.

VILLAGE OF TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. J. Burch McMORRAN, individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Transportation of the State of New York, Defendants.

Nos. 69 Civ. 295, 354, 305 and 448.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

February 27, 1969.

Winer, Neuburger & Sive, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., for defendant state of New York; by Joel H. Sachs and Mark T. Walsh, New York City, of counsel.

EDELSTEIN, District Judge.

OPINION

Four separate actions challenging on various grounds the construction of the proposed Hudson River Expressway were commenced in this court. The plaintiffs include the Citizens Committee for the Hudson Valley and the Sierra Club, conservation organizations having members who reside in the area in which the Expressway is to be located. The Citizens Committee is a local, unincorporated association, whereas the Sierra Club is a non-profit corporation organized in California with various local branches located throughout the United States. The third plaintiff is the Village of Tarrytown, a municipal corporation created by and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and situated in the proposed path of the Expressway. The defendants Volpe, Resor, Cassidy, and McMorran are respectively the Secretary of Transportation of the United States, the Secretary of the Army of the United States, the Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, and the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation of the State of New York. Together the defendants are among the various federal and state officials who have or are alleged to have the duty to pass on applications to perform work in connection with the Expressway. The State of New York has intervened in two actions.

Generally the plaintiffs in each action are seeking an order barring the construction of the Expressway on the grounds that it has not been validly authorized pursuant to the applicable statutory provisions, that administrative decisions rendered in favor of its construction are arbitrary and capricious, and that the statute under which it was authorized, Section 340-c of the New York Highway Law, McKinney's Consol. Laws, c. 25, is unconstitutional. Insofar as all of these actions involve common questions of law and of fact they have been ordered consolidated pursuant to Rule 42, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Expressway itself is planned to extend for approximately nine miles along the east shore of the Hudson River from a point near the Tappan Zee Bridge at Tarrytown, New York, north to Crotonville, New York. Approximately 22,000 feet of the road will rest on fill extending at the widest point 1300 feet into the river. The river at this point is 10,000 feet wide. The project as planned will include the construction of recreational and park facilities along the river together with necessary access facilities.

These matters are now before this court on an application, brought on by an order to show cause, for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Army Corps of Engineers from delivering to the Department of Transportation of the State of New York, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 403 the permit which it has issued and which would authorize the fill operations to begin. There are also jurisdictional motions before the court. These need not be reached now.

This court conducted a full hearing on this matter on February 19, 1969. It is this court's conclusion that a preliminary injunction should not issue in this case.

It is hornbook law that a motion for a preliminary injunction is addressed to the discretion of the court and that the remedy itself is an extraordinary one that is not granted absent a strong showing of need by the plaintiff. See, e. g., American Metropolitan Enterprises of New York, Inc., v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 389 F.2d 903 (2d Cir. 1968); Hershey Creamery Co. v. Hershey Chocolate Corp., 269 F.Supp. 45 (S.D.N.Y.1967); Hudson Pulp & Paper Corp. v. Swanee Paper Corp., 223 F. Supp. 617 (S.D.N.Y.1963). There are, in this regard, four concepts which the court should take into consideration and balance before granting this relief: the probability that plaintiff will eventually succeed on the merits; the presence of some irreparable injury to the plaintiff; the injury to defendant; and the public interest in the granting of the preliminary injunction. Garland v. Ruskin, 249 F.Supp. 977 (S.D.N.Y.1965); 7 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 65.04.

In the instant case it is far from clear that plaintiff will succeed on the merits. All parties agree that approval of the federal government is required before New York can begin filling in the river. However, the plaintiffs initially contend that the Expressway project was incorrectly treated by the Departments of the Army and Interior as a matter that is governed by 33 U.S.C. § 403. Rather, plaintiffs argue that the Expressway should have been treated as requiring the consent of Congress under 33 U.S.C. § 401, insofar as the road includes dikes and causeways, and the approval, under 49 U.S.C. § 1655, of the Department of Transportation, insofar as the road includes bridges. But inasmuch as this project apparently will not substantially interfere with navigation along the river, and inasmuch as the Department of Transportation has already had an opportunity to examine this project and has interposed no objections, it is doubtful that these arguments will prevail. It is equally doubtful that plaintiffs' unelaborated arguments relating to the asserted unconstitutionality of § 340-c of the New York Highway Law will prevail.¹

Additionally, the plaintiffs are seeking review of the approvals given to the Expressway project by defendants Resor and Cassidy and by former Secretary of the Interior Udall. But plaintiffs chances here too are limited considering the admittedly narrow scope of review that is available to a court in matters such as these. Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); Wong Wing Hang v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 360 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1966).

These doubts as to whether or not the plaintiffs will ultimately be able to succeed undermine their motion for preliminary relief. I. T. S. Industria Tessuti Speciali v. Aerfab Corp., 280 F.Supp. 581 (S.D.N.Y.1967).

In addition to the...