affirmation of michael burger in support of defendant's motion to ...
affirmation of michael burger in support of defendant's motion to ... affirmation of michael burger in support of defendant's motion to ...
3. The building at 2 Columbus Circle, presently owned by the City, sits vacant and in deteriorating condition on the south end of Columbus Circle, a central and important part of the City that has otherwise experienced significant rejuvenation and redevelopment. The sale will allow the Museum to move from its current location at West 53rd Street, where there is only enough room to host temporary exhibitions, to a larger space where the Museum will be able to, among other things, display its permanent collection, open an restaurant, and develop a Center for the Study of Contemporary Craft. The sale has already undergone an extensive public review process pursuant to the City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure ("ULURP"), including public hearings before Community Board 5 and the City Planning Commission, and has been approved at all levels. 4. The proposal also underwent environmental review in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Rules of Procedure for City Environmental Quality Review. The environmental review for the project was challenged in an Article 78 Proceeding commenced by these same plaintiffs, who claimed that the review did not adequately address the historic and architectural value of the building. In an opinion dated April 15, 2004, Justice Walter B. Tolub determined that a thorough environmental review for the project had been completed, and that the review of historic and architectural resources was entirely adequate, and dismissed the proceeding. See Landmark West v. Burden, 2004 NY Slip Op 5033IU, 3 Misc. 3d 1102A (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2004). That decision was appealed to the First Department, where arguments were held on December 1, the same day this action was filed. 5. Pursuant to Section 384(b)(4) of the New York City Charter, final disposition of the building requires the approval of the Manhattan Borough Board. A public 2
meeting was held by the Borough Board on August 24, 2004. At the end of the meeting, the Board passed a resolution approving the sale to the Museum. See Exs. A, B. 6. Plaintiffs now claim that the Borough Board violated the New York State Open Meetings Law (the "OML"), Article 7 of the Public Officers Law, because the public meeting was held in late August, and because notice was allegedly not provided to the news media. See Complaint, ~~ 29 - 31. 7. Plaintiffs, however, do not have standing to bring this action. Section 107(1) of the OML states that "[a]ny aggrieved person shall have standing to enforce the provisions of this article against a public body." Plaintiffs were provided with ample notice of the meeting, and neither allege nor have shown that they were aggrieved by any alleged statutory violation. For instance, each plaintiff in this case is also a plaintiff in the related matter of Landmark West! v. Burden, and is represented by the same counsel in both cases. A letter from the New York City Law Department dated August 13, 2004 and copied to plaintiffs' counsel, states that the sale of the building "is on the agenda for the August 24, 2004 meeting of the Manhattan Borough Board." A copy ofthat letter is annexed as Exhibit D. 8. Moreover, telephone conversations, emails, personal meetings, public notice and media coverage in the weeks leading up to the meeting ensured that plaintiffs were on notice of the meeting date. See Baer Afr, ~~ 5 - 13; Exs. C - G. Plaintiffs were thus able to mobilize and prepare for the meeting. See Baer Aff., ~ 12; Ex. F. Kate Wood, executive director of Landmark West, who had been personally notified of the hearing date by the Manhattan Borough President's Office, actually appeared at the public meeting on behalf of plaintiffs and read a prepared statement into the record; Arlene Simon, president of Landmark West and an individually named plaintiff in this proceeding, was also present at the meeting. See Baer Aff., ~ 3
- Page 1: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW Y
- Page 5: 13. No prior application has been m
- Page 10 and 11: 3. Pursuant to § 384(b) of the New
- Page 12 and 13: article, which was published six da
- Page 14 and 15: The 9111 Commission sited several b
- Page 16 and 17: \lr. Smith stated it is just a fina
- Page 18 and 19: Ed Sulliyan (Councilman Perkins) sU
- Page 20 and 21: Roxanne Dodds thanked :\1r. Reyes-;
- Page 22 and 23: THE CITY OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE
- Page 24 and 25: Page 1 of 1 Anne Strahle From: Kate
- Page 26 and 27: ... cc: Marcus Rosenberg & Diamond
- Page 28 and 29: ----Original Message---- From: LAND
- Page 30 and 31: TR:a CJTY UCOJUI v~.r".OII+MO VOLll
- Page 32 and 33: Tin, CITY RbCORD VOLUlIIB CXXXI NUM
- Page 34 and 35: THE CITY RLCORD Official Journal of
- Page 36 and 37: plaintiffs, on or before the 23rd d
- Page 38: Index No. 116913/04 '" , SUPREME CO
meet<strong>in</strong>g was held by the Borough Board on August 24, 2004. At the end <strong>of</strong> the meet<strong>in</strong>g, the<br />
Board passed a resolution approv<strong>in</strong>g the sale <strong>to</strong> the Museum. See Exs. A, B.<br />
6. Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs now claim that the Borough Board violated the New York State<br />
Open Meet<strong>in</strong>gs Law (the "OML"), Article 7 <strong>of</strong> the Public Officers Law, because the public<br />
meet<strong>in</strong>g was held <strong>in</strong> late August, and because notice was allegedly not provided <strong>to</strong> the news<br />
media. See Compla<strong>in</strong>t, ~~ 29 - 31.<br />
7. Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs, however, do not have stand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> br<strong>in</strong>g this action. Section<br />
107(1) <strong>of</strong> the OML states that "[a]ny aggrieved person shall have stand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> enforce the<br />
provisions <strong>of</strong> this article aga<strong>in</strong>st a public body." Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs were provided with ample notice <strong>of</strong><br />
the meet<strong>in</strong>g, and neither allege nor have shown that they were aggrieved by any alleged statu<strong>to</strong>ry<br />
violation. For <strong>in</strong>stance, each pla<strong>in</strong>tiff <strong>in</strong> this case is also a pla<strong>in</strong>tiff <strong>in</strong> the related matter <strong>of</strong><br />
Landmark West! v. Burden, and is represented by the same counsel <strong>in</strong> both cases. A letter from<br />
the New York City Law Department dated August 13, 2004 and copied <strong>to</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs' counsel,<br />
states that the sale <strong>of</strong> the build<strong>in</strong>g "is on the agenda for the August 24, 2004 meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Manhattan Borough Board." A copy <strong>of</strong>that letter is annexed as Exhibit D.<br />
8. Moreover, telephone conversations, emails, personal meet<strong>in</strong>gs, public<br />
notice and media coverage <strong>in</strong> the weeks lead<strong>in</strong>g up <strong>to</strong> the meet<strong>in</strong>g ensured that pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs were on<br />
notice <strong>of</strong> the meet<strong>in</strong>g date. See Baer Afr, ~~ 5 - 13; Exs. C - G. Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs were thus able <strong>to</strong><br />
mobilize and prepare for the meet<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
See Baer Aff., ~ 12; Ex. F. Kate Wood, executive direc<strong>to</strong>r<br />
<strong>of</strong> Landmark West, who had been personally notified <strong>of</strong> the hear<strong>in</strong>g date by the Manhattan<br />
Borough President's Office, actually appeared at the public meet<strong>in</strong>g on behalf <strong>of</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs and<br />
read a prepared statement <strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong> the record; Arlene Simon, president <strong>of</strong> Landmark West and an<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividually named pla<strong>in</strong>tiff <strong>in</strong> this proceed<strong>in</strong>g, was also present at the meet<strong>in</strong>g. See Baer Aff., ~<br />
3
Change language