N.Y. Univ. v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 16 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 153199/2022 |
| Citation | 2023 NY Slip Op 50479 (U) |
| Parties | New York University, Plaintiff, v. City of New York, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Unpublished Opinion
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY (Jeffrey L Braun and Elise Wagner of counsel), for plaintiff.
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY (Michelle Goldberg-Cahn, Melanie V. Sadok, Chris Reo, Tess Dernbach, and Chad Hughes of counsel), for defendant.
Jack L. Lester, Esq., East Hampton, NY, and Lawrence K. Marks Esq., New York, NY, for Proposed Intervenors.
Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse, NY (Jonathan B. Fellows of counsel), for the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities, amicus curiae.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 52, 54, 77, 80 were read on this motion for DISMISSAL.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81 were read on this motion for LEAVE TO INTERVENE.
This action arises from the City of New York's 2021 rezoning of the SoHo and NoHo neighborhoods in Manhattan. At the last stage of public consideration of the rezoning proposal, the City Council added to that proposal a prohibition on college or university uses of property in the rezoned area. In response, New York University has sued the City of New York, asking this court to declare that the college-and-university-uses prohibition is void as beyond the City Council's authority to impose.
NYU's claims implicate weighty questions of law and policy about local zoning authority in the context of town-gown relations. Also weighty, however, is the principle that courts must limit themselves to adjudicating only "actual controversies for parties that have a genuine stake in the litigation." (Matter of Association for a Better Long Island, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 23 N.Y.3d 1, 6 [2014].) That principle is relevant-indeed, dispositive-here. The zoning rules for SoHo and NoHo in place before the challenged rezoning also prohibited college and university uses of property. As a result, that rezoning did not adversely affect NYU's right to use its property in rezoned SoHo/NoHo. NYU could not use that property without obtaining a zoning variance before, and it may not use that property without obtaining a zoning variance now. Absent some identifiable, current injury, and NYU points to none, NYU lacks standing to bring its current challenge to the City's prohibition on college/university uses in the rezoned neighborhoods. NYU's action must be dismissed.
This action relates to an area in the SoHo and NoHo neighborhoods in Manhattan. (See New York City Zoning Resolution [ZR] art. 14, Appendix A [map of rezoned area]; [1] see also NYSCEF No. 31 [].) This area was zoned for many years for manufacturing uses. (NYSCEF No. 2 at ¶ 20 [complaint].) Under that zoning, college and university uses were prohibited, and could be undertaken only through the grant of a zoning variance by the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals. (See NYSCEF No. 30 at ¶ 17 []; ZR §§ 42-00, 42-12 []; id. §§ 42-31, 42-32 []; see also NYSCEF No. 21 [].)
In 2015, the Department of City Planning began studying the possibility of updating SoHo and NoHo's zoning rules. (See NYSCEF No. 2 at ¶ 21.) In 2020, the Department began the public-review process for rezoning these neighborhoods into a "special district," in which "zoning rules applicable to both manufacturing and residential districts would jointly apply." (Id. at ¶¶ 23-26.) This process, the City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP, continued through much of 2021. (See id. at ¶¶ 27-30.)
ULURP requires the New York City Planning Commission to approve rezoning plans. (See id. at ¶ 30.) As approved by the City Planning Commission, the rezoning created a "mixed-use zoning framework, under which "the rules governing the applicable residential and manufacturing districts jointly apply." (Id. at ¶ 31.) Residential uses-including college and university uses-would be permitted "as-of-right throughout the newly proposed zoning districts." (Id. at ¶¶ 33-34 [internal quotation marks omitted].)
Following the City Planning Commission's approval of the rezoning plan, the plan went to the City Council for its own review. During that review, the City Council added several use-related restrictions. (See id. at ¶ 38; ZR § 143-11.) These restrictions included a bar on "college and university uses and student residence halls." (NYSCEF No. 2 at ¶¶ 38-41; see ZR § 143-11 [a].) The City Council approved the SoHo/NoHo rezoning, with these added restrictions, on December 15, 2021, and its approval of the rezoning was not vetoed by the Mayor. (NYSCEF No. 2 at ¶ 41.)
NYU brought this action in April 2022. [2] NYU is seeking a declaratory judgment that the bar on college/university uses imposed by ZR § 143-11 (a) is ultra vires: void as beyond the City's power to adopt. NYU is also asking this court to grant injunctive relief restraining the City and its agents from applying or enforcing that bar. (See id. at 19 [prayer for relief].)
The City has moved to dismiss NYU's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under CPLR 3211 (a) (2) and failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (7). (NYSCEF No. 5.) NYU has cross-moved for summary judgment under CPLR 3211 (c) and CPLR 3212. (NYSCEF No. 29.)
During briefing on the motion and cross-motion, a group of community members and organizations moved by order to show cause for leave to intervene, contending that they have a separate interest in NYU's ability to develop and use property in rezoned SoHo/NoHo that would not be adequately represented should this court grant NYU's requested declaratory and injunctive relief. (See NYSCEF No. 69 []; NYSCEF No. 67 at 1-2, 10-12 [mem. of law].) NYU and the City each separately opposed the motion to intervene. (See NYSCEF No. 75 [NYU]; NYSCEF No. 70 [the City].) This court heard oral argument in March 2023 on the motion to intervene (see NYSCEF No. 81 [oral-argument transcript]), and reserved decision pending the court's resolution of the City's motion to dismiss and NYU's cross-motion for summary judgment (see id. at Tr. 39). [3]
The parties completed briefing on the motion and cross-motion at the end of March 2023; and the court heard oral argument on May 10. The motion to dismiss and cross-motion for summary judgment (mot seq 001), and the motion to intervene (mot seq 003), are now ripe for decision and are consolidated here for disposition. The motion to dismiss is granted; the cross- motion for summary judgment is denied; and the motion to intervene is denied as academic.
In moving to dismiss, the City contends that (i) NYU has no standing to bring this action, such that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; and (ii) NYU's claims fail to state a cause of action.
As an initial matter, it is unclear whether a challenge to NYU's standing due to the (asserted) absence of a legally cognizable injury goes to the court's jurisdiction to adjudicate this action, or whether the City's challenge presents only prudential justiciability grounds to refrain from addressing the merits of NYU's claims. [4] But given that the issue of standing has been raised and ably briefed by the parties, the distinction between the two is immaterial for purposes of the parties' motion and cross-motion. [5] Either way, this court must determine whether NYU has sufficiently alleged a legally cognizable injury to establish its standing to bring a facial challenge to ZR § 143-11 (a).
For the reasons below, the court agrees with the City that NYU has not shown that it has suffered a cognizable injury that would give it standing to sue here. The court therefore does not reach the parties' merits arguments about whether the prohibition on college and university uses is ultra vires. And the dismissal on standing grounds of NYU's complaint renders academic the pending motion to intervene.
A plaintiff challenging governmental action must demonstrate at the outset that it "has an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated." (Matter of Acevedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 29 N.Y.3d 202, 218 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted].) To do so, a plaintiff "must show 'injury in fact,' meaning that plaintiff will actually be harmed" by the action it challenges. (New York State Assoc. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 N.Y.3d 207, 211 [2004].) The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the asserted injury "fall[s] within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision" under which the government took the challenged action. (Id.) The City argues that NYU lacks standing because it has not alleged (or shown) a cognizable injury in fact. This court agrees.
As articulated in NYU's complaint, motion papers, and presentation at oral argument, NYU's principal claim of injury is that "were it not for [Zoning Resolution] § 143-11 (a), NYU would be free...
To continue reading
Request your trial