Orange County v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority

• Decision Date: 20 October 1971
• Citation: 337 N.Y.S.2d 178,71 Misc.2d 691
• Parties: The COUNTY OF ORANGE, a municipal corporation in the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public benefit corporation andDepartment of Transportation of the State of New York, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 178

337 N.Y.S.2d 178

71 Misc.2d 691

The COUNTY OF ORANGE, a municipal corporation in the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public benefit corporation andDepartment of Transportation of the State of New York, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Orange County.

Oct. 20, 1971.

Peter G. Striphas, County Atty. of Orange County, Goshen, for plaintiff.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, John R. Hupper, Norman J. Itzkoff, Ronald S. Rolfe, New York City, of counsel, for defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., State of N.Y., Daniel M. Cohen, New York City, of counsel, for defendant Dept. of Transportation of State of New York.

LEONARD RUBENFELD, Justice.

By an order to show cause, dated August 6, 1971, returnable on August 27, 1971, plaintiff in this action for a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction moved for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding in any manner with the acquisition of approximately 9,000 acres of real property in connection with the expansion and development of Stewart Airport in Orange County. No temporary restraining order was contained in the order to show cause.

On August 12, 1971, a motion for similar relief--although based on somewhat different grounds--was denied by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (see opinion and order of Judge Marvin E. Frankel in Town of New Windsor v. Ronan (329 F.Supp. 1286 (S.D.N.Y.1971)). The next day, on August 13, 1971 a map and description of some 8,657 acres of land adjoining Stewart Airport were filed in the Office of the Clerk of Orange County. Defendants maintained and continue to maintain that the filing of the map vested title to the land in the State of New York.

Thereafter, plaintiff served an amended complaint containing 14 separate causes of action and moved for additional preliminary injunctive relief which would annul the filing of the map and restore title to the prior owners pending the outcome of this action. The defendants cross-moved for dismissal of the individual causes of action in the complaint, and of the entire complaint, for failure to state a cause of action.

The motions being now fully submitted to the Court for determination, the cross-motion for an order dismissing the complaint is granted and, since a preliminary injunction may not issue where the underlying action is dismissed (CPLR 6301; cf. Rodgers v. Rodgers, 30 A.D.2d 548, 549, 290 N.Y.S.2d 608, 610; 12 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 78:52), the motion for a preliminary injunction and related relief is denied.

I

Stewart Airport is located in the vicinity of Newburgh, New York. It was used as a United States Air Force Base from 1942 until 1970. In March of 1970, the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) was permitted by the Department of Defense to lease and operate a large portion of the base as a general aviation airport. In July of 1970, MTA acquired title to some 1590 acres of the 2100 acre facility.

An Airport Development Task Force of the Federal Aviation Administration reported of Stewart Airport, in September of 1970, that:

'The airport is 55 miles away from New York City and located adjacent to the New York State Thruway and Route 184; the present acreage is 2,186 acres, with land to the west and southwest which is uninhabited and which appears to be available for the requirements of an expanded facility.

'There are no insurmountable topographic or airspace problems if expansion were to be considered. The location, from a ground access viewpoint, is good. The only limiting factor is a lack of a high speed ground transportation system. In addition to the highway accessability noted above, the airport lies close to the Erie Lackawanna rail right of way whose spurs connect the site with Newark, New Jersey, and can provide additional improved rail links with New York City proper. The airport itself has two runways, one 7,000 feet long and one 6,000 feet long, and is capable of handling medium range aircraft. The airport has a practical annual capacity of about 160,000 operations under its present configuration. It is located in an area of rapidly growing population and could significantly relieve the existing metropolitan area airports. It has the potential of being developed as a major air carrier airport, as well as a cargo and freight facility. Its location indicates that it may present one of the last viable opportunities for additional major airport facilities in the area.'

Seven months later, on April 26, 1971, the New York State Legislature passed 'An Act to authorize the establishment of an airport for the accommodation of domestic and international air travel and freight transport at Stewart Airport and the making of an appropriation therefor' (Laws of 1971, ch. 472). The act was amended on May 27, 1971 (Laws of 1971, ch. 473) and signed into law by the Governor on June 17, 1971. Section 1 of the Stewart Airport Act, as amended, authorizes the MTA:

'to establish, construct, expand, rehabilitate, improve, maintain, reconstruct and operate at Stewart airport, in the vicinity of Newburgh, New York, an airport for the accommodation of domestic and international air freight transport, general aviation and such other airport purposes for which there may be need from time to time. The sum of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000), or so much thereof as shall be necessary to accomplish the purposes herein designated is hereby appropriated . . . for such purposes . . . including the acquisition of real property or interests therein . . ..

If the need for the application to such purposes is not immediate, the right to possession of any land or interests therein thus acquired shall be transferred by the authority to a wholly owned subsidiary corporation of the authority specially created for the interim administration and management of such property. Such administration and management shall include the right to lease, but preference in such leasing shall be given to the application of the person owning such property immediately prior to its acquisition.'

In a joint statement issued by Governor Rockefeller and members of the Legislature on May 18, 1971, it was pointed out that the acreage to be taken was 'needed for runway extension, facilities and a buffer zone'; that primary emphasis would be placed on a 'phased development of Stewart as an air cargo shipping center and general aviation facility'; that other development of the airport would 'only be in response to need'; and that the detailed study, planning and development of the airport would be made in close cooperation with local officials and would be consistent with sound environmental standards and practices.

Later, in a memorandum filed with his approval of the Stewart Airport Act, the Governor noted that the New York Metropolitan region had been seeking a suitable site for the location of a major airport 'for more than twelve years' and that the land then held by the MTA at Stewart Airport was inadequate to meet the growing aviation needs of the area:

'A much larger land area than 1,600 acres is needed for a major airport. For example, the new airport to serve the Dallas-Ft. Worth area is some 18,000 acres.

'This bill will empower the MTA to purchase, using funds from the aviation portion of the 1967 Transportation Capital Facilities Bond Issue, additional land for the expansion contemplated and also to begin the orderly planning and development of Stewart as a major airport. The reserving of land for airport development purposes at this time will insure that the impact of an expanded Stewart Airport will have minimal adverse impact on the environment as noise buffer zones and other sound ecological protections can be easily incorporated into the planning. In addition, by moving now on the improvement, expansion and development of Stewart Airport while land in the area of the airport is largely undeveloped will mean minimal relocation of people and businesses as the airport development program moves ahead. Prompt action to expand the newly acquired Stewart Airport will inconvenience the least number of people, have the least adverse impact on the environment and help insure the future job opportunities so essential for the well-being of the people of the Empire State.' (N.Y. Legis.Annual, 1971, p. 427).

On July 6, 1971, MTA Chairman William J. Ronan announced the beginning of steps to acquire approximately 9,000 acres of land west of Stewart Airport. In a news release issued by the MTA concerning the announcement, it was noted that the legislative debates had emphasized an expectation that the bulk of the $30,000,000 appropriation 'would be invested in the early acquisition of additional land around the airport'. The release went on to quote Chairman Ronan as saying, 'the Governor and the Legislature authorized acquisition of the property now so that we can be assured of proper airport development which serves the economic needs of the Region and the State and, at the same time, provides maximum protection for the local community'. But 'we wish to reassure those living in this area that the acquisition of property does not mean that people will be required to vacate their properties immediately. We believe that almost all of the people living, farming or doing business within the affected area will be able--if they wish--to stay for two years at the miminum'.

This announcement by the MTA Chairman was soon followed by separate actions, first in the Federal Court and now here, to obtain injunctions restraining the proposed acquisition.

II

In considering the motion to dismiss the complaint and the individual causes of action on the ground that they fail to state a cause of action, the Court is mindful that a pleading challenged for legal insufficiency must be liberally construed (CPLR 3026; Walkovszky v. Carlton, 18...