A rendering of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering/CUNY-Hunter College development, seen from 74th Street facing FDR Drive. Image credit: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Upper East Side community group did not meet burden of proof that City acted arbitrarily. On July 28, 2014, the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan denied petitions for declarative and injunctive relief against the proposed expansion of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital. The petitions were brought by the Residents for Reasonable Development and several Upper East Side residents acting individually. The petitioners argued that the institutional uses of the project were incompatible with the largely residential area, and that approvals by the City Planning Commission and City Council were granted without consideration to the general welfare.
On October 9, 2013, the full City Council voted 45-1 to approve an application by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) and The City University of New York/Hunter College (CUNY) for development of a former New York City Department of Sanitation garage. MSK planned to build a new ambulatory care center, and CUNY proposed to build the Hunter College Science and Health professions building. (See CityLand’s past coverage here.) The City Planning Commission previously approved the application on August 21, 2013, finding the application minimized or avoided a negative environmental impact as best as was practicable.
The petitioners argued that the expansion’s final environmental impact statement only addressed the environmental impact of MSK’s development when it should have also addressed CUNY’s development as well. The petitioners also argued that the impact statement, when considering alternatives to the development plan, improperly failed to consider alternatives suggested by the petitioners. Finally, the petitioners argued that terms allowing for additional floor area in exchange for public park improvements amounted to an illegal quid pro quo.
On July 28, 2014, Justice Alexander W. Hunter of the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan denied the petitions because the petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof that the City acted arbitrarily in approving the development plan. Justice Hunter ruled that the environmental impact statement did not have to address both sites, as the projects are independent of each other, and that the statement need not consider every possible alternative to a development plan to be valid. Justice Hunter also ruled that the park improvements did not constitute a quid pro quo, because the funds paid by MSK and CUNY could not be used for any purpose citywide, but specifically by the Parks Department for improvements only. Justice Hunter also ruled that the petitioners failed to demonstrate standing to bring suit in the first place, but judged the case on its merits in light of controlling case law that zoning litigation should be resolved on the merits rather than precluded by standing restrictions, when possible.
When reached for comment, attorney for the petitioners Albert K. Butzel confirmed that an appeal has been filed, and stated “We’re disappointed by the opinion and we believe that we have a strong case on appeal.” In response, a New York City Law Department spokesperson said “The decision dismissing the petition is sound, and we are confident that it will be upheld on appeal.”
Residents for Reasonable Development v. City of New York, Index No. 101624/13 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jul. 28, 2014) (Attorneys: Albert K. Butzel, for Residents for Reasonable Development; Louise Lippin & Kimberly Ong, for NYC).
By: Michael Twomey (Michael is a CityLaw Fellow and a New York Law School Graduate, Class of 2014).
This Med-Ed deal was pre-decided before the RFP was even issued and before the amateur volunteer committees saw it. The RFP was obviously a mere formality, rather than a serious attempt to get the best use and PUBLIC BENEFIT out of redevelopment of the PUBLIC’S PROPERTY. The RFP said that the City indeed preferred a new sanitation garage WITH the development as one project, not two. A serious bidding process would have yielded the right buyers. Yet the City’s preference for bids from the Medical/Educational industry corruptly precluded more collaborative efforts at a garage plus affordable or other housing and open space, all of which the public needs more than yet another hospital in this same Upper East Side residential neighborhood. The negative impact of 8600 more people, nearly 2000 cars every day will cause air pollution and nothing less than complete neighborhood destruction and restricted access to the current medical institutions on York Avenue. With so many neighborhoods desperate for hospitals, research facilities and education facilities — this is the wrong place for this one. The Parks Department’s site chosen to receive the $25 million zoning text amendment payment for increased project size does not and cannot benefit the community directly and negatively impacted by the project. They will receive nothing! The EDC’s corrupt fix was in from the beginning. Watch out rest of NYC!
This Med-Ed deal was pre-decided before the RFP was even issued. The RFP was obviously a mere formality, not a serious attempt at best use and PUBLIC BENEFIT out of redeveloping the PUBLIC’S PROPERTY. The RFP did say that the City preferred a new sanitation garage WITH a medical or education development AS ONE, NOT TWO PROJECTS, but the City’s preference for the Med/Ed industry corruptly precluded more collaborative efforts at a garage plus affordable or other housing and open space, all of which the public needs more than yet another hospital in this same Upper East Side residential neighborhood. There was no serious competitive bidding process and ONE project with one new development corporation won. 8600 more people and nearly 2000 cars daily will cause nothing less than dangerous destruction of residential life, and restricted access to the current York Ave. medical institutions. The families directly impacted by the project cannot benefit from the park receiving the $25 million zoning payment for increased project size. The corrupt fix was in from the beginning. This is the wrong place for this project. Watch out rest of NYC!
This Med-Ed deal was pre-decided before the RFP was even issued. With the RFP a mere formality (it called for a sanitation garage WITH a medical/education facility in one project, not two), no competitive bidding happened for best use and PUBLIC BENEFIT from the PUBLIC’S PROPERTY. The City’s preference for the Med/Ed industry corruptly precluded more collaborative efforts at a garage plus affordable or other housing and open space, all of which the public needs more than yet another hospital in this location. The winner is one project from one development corporation, not two. 8600 people and 1800 cars daily will cause the destruction of residential life, and restricted access to the current York Ave. medical institutions. $25 million is paid to a park to increase the project size while the impacted families cannot use it. The corrupt fix was in from the beginning. Wrong place, Wrong project.