1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001

NOT AN ILLEGAL QUID PRO QUO

Appellate Division Upholds Sloan-Kettering, Hunter College Expansion

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

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

Court held City did not act arbitrarily; parkland-for-floor area was not illegal quid pro quo. On October 9, 2013, the City Council approved an application by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and The City University of New York/Hunter College for development of a former New York City Department of Sanitation garage. (See CityLand’s past coverage here.) Residents for Reasonable Development petitioned for injunctive and declarative relief, arguing the environmental impact statement failed to consider Hunter’s expansion as well as Sloan-Kettering’s or a residential use of the area, and that granting additional floor area for new public space was an illegal quid pro quo.

On July 28, 2014 Justice Alexander W. Hunter of New York Supreme Court in Manhattan denied the petitions, ruling the impact statement fairly considered the area and the funds paid by Sloan-Kettering and Hunter were not an illegal quid pro quo as they were narrowly designated for Parks Department improvements only rather than general citywide use. Residents for Reasonable Development appealed.

On May 28, 2015 the Appellate Division, First Department voted to uphold Justice Hunter’s ruling. Justice Peter Tom, writing for the majority, affirmed the City was not required to consider the petitioners’ scenario of residential development on the subject site in environmental review as residential use would not have satisfied Sloan-Kettering and Hunter’s goals in developing the site. Justice Tom also affirmed the payment for additional parkland was incentive zoning and a proper use of City authority, not an illegal quid pro quo.

Residents for Reasonable Development v. City of New York (128 A.D.3d 609) (May 28, 2015) (Attorneys: Albert K. Butzel, for Residents for Reasonable Development; Zachary W. Carter, Jane L. Gordon of counsel, for City; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Maria T. Vullo of counsel, for Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases, City University of New York, and City University Construction Fund).

By: Michael Twomey (Michael is a CityLaw Fellow and a New York Law School Graduate, Class of 2014).

Categories: