City of New York v. Shakespeare

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Shakespeare

202 A.D.2d 237, 608 N.Y.S.2d 460

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 8, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 237 (City of New York v. Shakespeare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of New York v. Shakespeare, 202 A.D.2d 237, 608 N.Y.S.2d 460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

1 — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered July 19, 1993, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission did not exceed its power when it ordered defendants to remove a sculpture from the parcel located in the Greenwich Village Historic District as the Landmarks Preservation Law applies to an unimproved free-standing plot which is not part of a larger tax parcel but "is treated as a single entity for such tax purposes.” (Adminis[238]*238trative Code of City of NY § 25-302 [j]; § 25-305 [a].) Nor was the action of the Commission an unconstitutional taking of property (Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v New York City, 438 US 104). Where, as here, there is a rational basis for the administrative decision, a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission (see, Shubert Org. v Landmarks Preservation Commn., 166 AD2d 115, 120, appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 1006, lv denied 79 NY2d 751, cert denied — US —, 112 S Ct 2289). As the action of the administrative agency was neither arbitrary nor capricious nor in violation of law, and there existed a rational basis for the determination, summary judgment was proper (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered July 19, 1993, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission did not exceed its power when it ordered defendants to remove a sculpture from the parcel located in the Greenwich Village Historic District as the Landmarks Preservation Law applies to an unimproved free-standing plot which is not part of a larger tax parcel but "is treated as a single entity for such tax purposes.” (Adminis[238]*238trative Code of City of NY § 25-302 [j]; § 25-305 [a].) Nor was the action of the Commission an unconstitutional taking of property (Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v New York City, 438 US 104). Where, as here, there is a rational basis for the administrative decision, a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission (see, Shubert Org. v Landmarks Preservation Commn., 166 AD2d 115, 120, appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 1006, lv denied 79 NY2d 751, cert denied — US —, 112 S Ct 2289). As the action of the administrative agency was neither arbitrary nor capricious nor in violation of law, and there existed a rational basis for the determination, summary judgment was proper (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 237, 608 N.Y.S.2d 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-shakespeare-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack