In the Matter of East Thirteenth Street Community Association, et al.,
Appellants, v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, Respondent
84 N.Y.2d 287, 641 N.E.2d 1368, 617 N.Y.S.2d 706 (1994).
October 20, 1994
1 No. 146 (1994 NY Int. 155) Decided October 20, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Michael S. Gruen, for appellants.
John R. Casolaro, for respondent.
Antonio Pagan, et al., amici curiae.
SIMONS, J.:
This appeal concerns the development of a New York City site for
public housing. Petitioners are condominium boards, tenants and
residents of buildings near the project area who seek to challenge the
actions of the condemnor, respondent Urban Development Corporation
(UDC). The threshold question presented is whether they have standing
to do so in this proceeding brought under section 207 of the EDPL. We
conclude they do not and therefore affirm.
In 1991, H.E.L.P., a non-profit sponsor of housing for homeless
families, became interested in acquiring a lot between 13th and 14th
Streets and Third and Fourth Avenues to which the City of New York had
taken title by condemnation in 1968. The site was substantially
undeveloped and consisted of a parking lot and three boarded-up vacant
buildings. H.E.L.P. planned to construct a 14-story building to house
homeless and low income families, preferably from the surrounding
community, and an office and community center to serve the facility's
residents. In addition, the plan for the project included a two-story
commercial structure, to be constructed by H.E.L.P. at a cost of
$4,000,000 but licensed for use by the City, which retained ownership
of the 14th Street portion of the site. Funds for the project were to
be provided by the City and the State through the Housing Finance
Agency (HFA) under the Private Housing Finance Law.
Because HFA itself did not possess either the power of eminent domain
or the power to override City regulations which might delay the
project, HFA enlisted respondent UDC, which possesses both those
powers, as a participant in the project. On February 20, 1992, UDC
determined that the project qualified as a "land use improvement
SNIPPETS:
In the Matter of East Thirteenth Street Community Association, et al., Appellants, v.
New York State Urban Development Corporation, Respondent
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
This appeal concerns the development of a New York City site for public housing.
Petitioners are condominium boards, tenants and residents of buildings near the project area
Funds for the project were to be provided by the City and the State through the Housing
Because HFA itself did not possess either the power of eminent domain or the power to
UDC adopted a General Project Plan, and gave notice of a public hearing on the proposed
On August 19, 1992, UDC issued its determination and findings, which included a declaration
HFA, as lead agency, had previously undertaken environmental review pursuant to the State
Petitioners instituted an original proceeding in the Appellate Division pursuant to EDPL 207
They alleged that UDC had acted outside the scope of its authority in lending its powers to
They further alleged UDC's determination was jurisdictionally defective for failure to comply
The Appellate Division addressed these issues on the merits, confirmed the determination and
That section provides that "any person or persons jointly or severally, aggrieved by the
Section 207, however, by referring to aggrieved persons rather than condemnees, implies that
Thus, the question presented by this appeal is whether these non-condemnees may be aggrieved
the new statute recognized other purposes as well.
Consistent with these purposes, the statute provides that prior to acquisition the condemnor
The drafters of the legislation viewed the required hearing as a standardization of hearing
Alternatively, petitioners urge that this Court should take a more expansive approach to
In Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash, Inc. v Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North
Indeed, the "zone of interest" test has developed into the primary test for standing in the
A non-condemnee who can not only allege but also establish EDPL aggrievement, and who can
|
