Jackson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1986 |
| Citation | 67 N.Y.2d 400,494 N.E.2d 429,503 N.Y.S.2d 298 |
| Parties | , 494 N.E.2d 429, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,362 In the Matter of Fannie Mae JACKSON et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Imre J. ROSENTHAL et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. In the Matter of ROSENTHAL & ROSENTHAL, INC., et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Fannie Mae JACKSON et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
These cases, involving the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL), challenge the plan of the New York State Urban Development Corporation (UDC) and its subsidiary (Times Square Redevelopment Corporation) to redevelop the Times Square area of Manhattan. According to UDC, the project represents an attempt to eliminate the persistent blight that has characterized the area and return it to productive use. Petitioners, who work or own buildings in the area or reside nearby, contend that UDC, in its eagerness to get underway, has violated State law in several respects. Concluding that petitioners' contentions must be rejected, we begin with a review of the project and its history, then proceed to a consideration of the complaints in light of the governing law.
The project had its formal inception nearly six years ago with a Memorandum of Understanding, signed June 27, 1980, in which UDC and the city agreed to cooperate in a plan, with private participation, to redevelop the Times Square area. In February 1981, UDC and the city's Department of City Planning and Public Development Corporation issued a 100-page discussion document, identifying among its goals elimination of blight, revitalization of the area as an entertainment center, development of commercial potential, and strengthening of nearby areas. To these ends, the document proposed a mix of office towers, hotel space, theaters and retail space; presented options for the development of eight sites within the tentatively designated project area; and solicited public comment.
Six months later, in a proposed general project plan, UDC made findings as required by the Urban Development Corporation Act (), including a finding that the area was, or was in danger of becoming, a substandard or insanitary area and tended to impair or arrest the sound growth and development of the city. UDC authorized formation of a subsidiary and acquisition of property by negotiated purchase or eminent domain, and invited private developers to submit proposals. In April 1982, after reviewing 26 proposals, UDC conditionally designated several developers. Meanwhile, on August 3, 1981 UDC held the first public hearing on the plan pursuant to the UDCA and the EDPL and received written and oral comments.
Planning continued, and in February 1984 UDC issued a 900-page Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The DEIS defined the project area (41st Street to 43rd Street, from Eighth Avenue east to Broadway), and divided it into 12 sites, on which were to be developed four office towers, a hotel, theaters, retail and restaurant space, and a wholesale mart. The project also contemplated improvements funded by the site developers, including a renovated subway station, pedestrian bridge and traffic lay-by lane on Eighth Avenue. The DEIS assessed the project's environmental consequences in the project area and several secondary impact areas, including impact on land use and community resources, social and street conditions, historic resources, economics, traffic and transportation, air quality, noise, utility consumption and water quality, and energy consumption. In addition, the DEIS compared these consequences with what might be expected without development, and with several alternate plans, and recommended mitigation measures to address adverse effects.
Joint public hearings followed, on March 26 and April 9, 1984, pursuant to SEQRA, UDCA, EDPL and the State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA), and UDC additionally received more than 100 written comments during the ensuing comment period. On August 23, 1984, UDC issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project. The FEIS--some 1,000 pages, with charts and other illustrative materials--modified the DEIS, and responded to each of the 240 comments received on the DEIS. Thereafter, UDC received written comments on the project and the FEIS, and on September 6, 1984 held a fourth hearing pursuant to EDPL.
UDC adopted a general project plan on October 4, 1984, together with a series of findings, including findings that: consistent with social, economic and other considerations, among the reasonable alternatives the approved plan was one that minimized or avoided adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable (see, ECL 8-0109[1]; 6 NYCRR 617.9[c][2][i] ); consistent with social, economic and other considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the EIS would be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions mitigating measures identified as practicable in the EIS (see, ECL 8-0109[8]; 6 NYCRR 617.9[c][2][ii] ); the project area was characterized by substandard and insanitary conditions that had a blighting effect and threatened the surrounding area as well (see, UDCA § 10[c][1]; McKinney's Uncons. Laws of N.Y. § 6260[c][1] ); the project was intended to eradicate blight and stimulate development, and that the benefits accruing from the project far exceeded any potential negative impacts; and the project would have substantial economic, commercial and social benefits for residents of the city as a whole.
The city Board of Estimate, following public hearings on October 25 and November 8, on November 9, 1984, authorized the Mayor to execute agreements for site development with the UDC and developers.
These four proceedings were commenced in December 1984 and early 1985 by two groups of petitioners. 1 The first group--the Jackson petitioners--consists of Fannie Mae Jackson and Larry Flower, elderly, disabled residents of Clinton, a neighborhood abutting the project area to the northwest, and designated a secondary impact area. One proceeding alleges violations of SEQRA, the second violations of EDPL. The thrust of both is that UDC and the FEIS did not adequately address the project's impact on the elderly, who will be forced out of their apartments by rising rents and unscrupulous landlords taking advantage of the gentrification of Clinton caused by the project. The Jackson petitioners claim that mitigation measures set forth in the FEIS are illusory and inadequate.
The second group--the Rosenthal petitioners--is composed of entities owning or renting buildings in the project area that are slated to be acquired by UDC and demolished, as well as people who work or own businesses in the project area. These petitioners also have brought two suits, one based on SEQRA and the second on EDPL. They allege procedural defects in the EIS process and the eminent domain hearings. Moreover, they contend the FEIS fails to take into account a number of crucial considerations in respect of traffic patterns, air pollution, archaeology and water supply.
The two article 78 proceedings alleging violations of SEQRA were submitted to Special Term, New York County. In a single judgment, the court dismissed the petition in Jackson but granted the petition in Rosenthal, on the ground that UDC had illegally failed to consider either the possible effect of the project on a water tunnel beneath Sixth Avenue or a modification to the project approved after the FEIS was issued. The court remanded the matter to UDC for consideration and enjoined UDC from proceeding with the project until UDC issued a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in accordance with SEQRA. All parties appealed. The Appellate Division, 114 A.D.2d 745, 494 N.Y.S.2d 700, heard argument of the SEQRA appeals jointly with arguments of the other two cases, alleging violations of EDPL, which had been commenced in the Appellate Division in accordance with EDPL 207(A). That court dismissed both EDPL petitions, confirming UDC's determination and findings without opinion, and modified Special Term's judgment in the SEQRA cases by dismissing the Rosenthal petition in its entirety and otherwise affirmed the dismissal of the Jackson petition (110 A.D.2d 304, 494 N.Y.S.2d 700).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yonkers Racing Corp. v. City of Yonkers
...Renewal Agency v. Moreton, 100 A.D.2d 20, 473 N.Y.S.2d 278, 281 (4th Dep't 1984); see also Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 305, 494 N.E.2d 429, 436 (1986) ("principal purpose of Article 2 ... is to ensure that [the condemnor] does not acquire pro......
-
Wilder v. Thomas
...the complex procedural machinations that have accompanied the planning stages are described in Jackson v. N.Y. State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 494 N.E.2d 429 (1986), aff'g 110 A.D.2d 304, 494 N.Y.S.2d 700 (1st Dep't 1985). The goal of the project is to eliminate "ph......
-
ATLANTIC TERM. URBAN REN. v. DEPT. OF ENV. PROT.
...in part (all on other grounds), California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982); Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 427, 503 N.Y.S. 2d 298, 311, 494 N.E.2d 429, 442 (1986) (stating that failure to raise challenges to FEIS under state environmental law during procee......
-
Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
...a “hard look” at them and made a “reasoned elaboration” on its determination, as required by Jackson v. N.Y. State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 494 N.E.2d 429 (1986). Id. at *12. The court reasoned that satisfying SEQRA does not mandate that “every conceivable environm......
-
Defining the Problem
...[to] choose among alternatives.” (Akpan v. Koch, 75 N.Y.2d 561, 570 [1990], quoting Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 416 [1986]). Our review of the record establishes that the determination of IDA not to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (......
-
Judicial review under SEQRA: a statistical study.
...nearby water (N.Y. 1985). supply. 1986 Jackson v. N.Y. State Standard of review for SEQRA will Urban Dev. Corp., be either "arbitrary and 494 N.E.2d 429 capricious" or "abuse of (N.Y. 1986). discretion." Chinese Staff & Socio-economic impacts are covered Workers Ass'n. v. City by SEQRA ......
-
Lighting the way: the Lighthouse decision and judicial review of agency action.
...statement). (85) Riverkeeper, 9 N.Y.3d at 231-32, 881 N.E.2d at 177, 851 N.Y.S.2d at 81 (quoting Jackson v. N. Y. State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 417, 494 N.E.2d 429, 436, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 305 (1986) (emphasis (86) Greater Bos. Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 850 (D.C. Cir. 1......
-
New York's fight over blight: the role of economic underutilization in Kaur.
...(88.) See Yonkers Cmty Dev. Agency v. Morris, 335 N.E.2d 327, 332 (N.Y. 1975). (89.) Id. (90.) Jackson v. N.Y. State Urban Dev. Corp., 494 N.E.2d 429, 441 (N.Y. 1986) (internal quotation marks and citations (91.) Goldstein v. N.Y. State Urban Dev. Corp., 921 N.E.2d 164, 172 (N.Y. 2009). The......