Opinion
March 8, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.).
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." (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 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 U.S. 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 A.D.2d 115, 120, appeal dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1006, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d 222).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.