From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tribeca Community Ass'n v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 27, 1994
200 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

January 27, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.).


The project under review will be located on a two acre parcel bounded by West, Greenwich, Murray and Warren Streets, just north of the World Trade Center, which presently is occupied by a parking lot. The proponents propose to construct a 10 story office tower and a 33,000 square feet trading floor, expandable to 51,000 square feet, to house the defendant commodities exchanges. The exchanges contend that their present location in 4 World Trade are increasingly inadequate. To induce them to remain in New York City, the defendant public authorities negotiated the conveyance of the site from the City to the UDC, and partial financing by EDC, with 99 year leases to be executed between the exchanges and UDC, with an option to purchase after 30 years at the market value of the land. The exchanges bound themselves to remain in the City for 30 years.

We find no basis to disturb the finding of the UDC, made under its enabling statute (McKinney's Uncons Laws of N.Y. § 6260 [c] [Urban Development Corporation Act § 10 (c); L 1968, ch 174, § 1]), that the parcel is blighted (see generally, Yonkers Community Dev. Agency v. Morris, 37 N.Y.2d 478). Nor do we find a basis to conclude, in the context of the modern service economy, that there is a significant distinction, for purposes of the EDC's enabling statute (N-PCL 1411 [c]), between an industrial project which receives public funding, and a commercial project. Despite an incidental private benefit, this project provides a substantial public benefit, and it cannot be equated with an unconstitutional gift or loan to a private party as prohibited by article VIII (§ 1) or article VII (§ 8) of the State Constitution (see, Murphy v. Erie County, 28 N.Y.2d 80; see generally, Hotel Dorset Co. v. Trust for Cultural Resources, 46 N.Y.2d 358, 369-370). We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Tribeca Community Ass'n v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 27, 1994
200 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Tribeca Community Ass'n v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Case Details

Full title:TRIBECA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 27, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
607 N.Y.S.2d 18

Citing Cases

Thomas v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

Consequently, any benefit that a political candidate may have received from the Chancellor's comments was…

Schulz v. State

To this point, "an appropriation is valid where it has a predominant public purpose and any private benefit…