Sutherland v. New York City Housing Development Corporation
Decision Date | 14 April 2009 |
Docket Number | 302. |
Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 02834,877 N.Y.S.2d 43,61 A.D.3d 479 |
Parties | SUSAN SUTHERLAND et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
To the extent petitioners challenge construction of AMP's residential building as obstructing the views from their apartments, Supreme Court correctly concluded that the challenge was moot. By the time this proceeding was commenced, the building project was substantially complete, petitioners had failed to seek preliminary injunctive relief, there was no evidence that construction work was performed in bad faith, and such work could not be readily undone without undue hardship (see Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., 2 NY3d 727, 729 [2004]; Matter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98 NY2d 165, 172-173 [2002]).
To the extent petitioners challenge HDC's decision to provide tax-exempt funds allowing 20% of the apartment units in the building to be designated as affordable housing for low income tenants, Supreme Court correctly concluded that petitioners lack standing. The unrefuted evidence shows that the building's structure would have been the same without HDC's funding, the only difference being that without such funding, all of the apartment units would rent at market rates. Accordingly, petitioners fail to establish any nexus between the view obstruction injury they allege and HDC's funding of the project (see Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 NY2d 428, 433 [1990]). In addition, petitioners fail to show that such funding caused them to suffer hardships, namely, view obstruction, not also experienced by the public at large (see New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004];...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weeks Woodlands Ass'n, Inc. v. Dormitory Auth. of State
...Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98 N.Y.2d 165, 746 N.Y.S.2d 429, 774 N.E.2d 193 [2002];Sutherland v. New York City Hous. Dev. Corp., 61 A.D.3d 479, 479–480, 877 N.Y.S.2d 43 [2009],lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 703, 2009 WL 2762552 [2009];William Israel's Farm Coop. v. Board of Stds. & Appeals o......
-
Dever v. Devito
...Hill v. New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., 2 N.Y.3d at 729, 778 N.Y.S.2d 740, 811 N.E.2d 2; Sutherland v. New York City Hous. Dev. Corp., 61 A.D.3d 479, 479–480, 877 N.Y.S.2d 43 [2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 703, 886 N.Y.S.2d 94, 914 N.E.2d 1012 [2009] ). Therefore, upon weighing these......
-
Gemstar-Tv Guide International, Inc. v. Yuen, 301.
... ... Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department ... Decided April 14, 2009 ... ...