New York City Coalition for the Preservation of Gardens v. Giuliani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York City Coalition for the Preservation of Gardens v. Giuliani

246 A.D.2d 399, 666 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 285

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 399 (New York City Coalition for the Preservation of Gardens v. Giuliani) 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

New York City Coalition for the Preservation of Gardens v. Giuliani, 246 A.D.2d 399, 666 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), entered October 15, 1997, which denied petitioners’ application to enjoin construction on lots allegedly occupied by community gardens and granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject of this proceeding is a group of once-vacant lots in Harlem and the Lower East Side on which groups of residents have planted gardens. We agree with the IAS Court that petitioner-appellant, having no “legally cognizable injury”, is without standing to bring this action (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 777). Petitioner’s members occupy the lots either without any enforceable license or permission (see, Matter of Lee v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preservation & Dev., 212 AD2d 453, 454, lv dismissed and denied 85 NY2d 1029), or pursuant to a license that was terminated (see, P & A Bros. v City of N. Y. Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 184 AD2d 267, 269). Since petitioner lacks standing, we do not reach its substantive arguments. Were we to reach them, we would find that the municipal respondent agency’s determination that the action is Type II has a rational basis (see, Matter of We Stay / Nos Quedamos Comm. v New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs., 240 AD2d 302). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), entered October 15, 1997, which denied petitioners’ application to enjoin construction on lots allegedly occupied by community gardens and granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject of this proceeding is a group of once-vacant lots in Harlem and the Lower East Side on which groups of residents have planted gardens. We agree with the IAS Court that petitioner-appellant, having no “legally cognizable injury”, is without standing to bring this action (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 777). Petitioner’s members occupy the lots either without any enforceable license or permission (see, Matter of Lee v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preservation & Dev., 212 AD2d 453, 454, lv dismissed and denied 85 NY2d 1029), or pursuant to a license that was terminated (see, P & A Bros. v City of N. Y. Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 184 AD2d 267, 269). Since petitioner lacks standing, we do not reach its substantive arguments. Were we to reach them, we would find that the municipal respondent agency’s determination that the action is Type II has a rational basis (see, Matter of We Stay / Nos Quedamos Comm. v New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs., 240 AD2d 302). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 399, 666 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-city-coalition-for-the-preservation-of-gardens-v-giuliani-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack