'Public Trust' Ruling Puts a Brake on Development
In his Zoning and Land Use Planning column, Anthony S. Guardino discusses how a decision by the New York Court of Appeals blocking construction of a project in Queens may reverberate across the state.
July 25, 2017 at 02:03 PM
18 minute read
By Anthony S. Guardino
Early last month, the New York Court of Appeals issued a decision that has made development of a particular blighted area of Queens significantly more difficult—and that may have similar repercussions in the future for the development of other property throughout the state.
In Matter of Avella v. City of New York, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 04383 (N.Y. June 6, 2017), the court upheld a decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, blocking construction of the so-called “Willets West” project on Citi Field's parking lot, where Shea Stadium once stood. The court, relying on the public trust doctrine—a fixture of New York law for well over a century—found that the proposed development had not been authorized by the New York State Legislature and, therefore, could not move forward. The court's narrow reading of what the Legislature had authorized—over the dissent of Chief Judge Janet DiFiore—suggests that in the future it might construe other legislative directives as narrowly when the public trust doctrine is at issue.
Background
The court discussed the public trust doctrine in a decision it issued nearly 150 years ago. In Brooklyn Park Commrs. v. Armstrong, 45 N.Y. 234 (1871), the court held that, when a municipality has taken land “for the public use as a park,” it must hold that property “in trust for that purpose” and may not convey it without the sanction of the Legislature. Two years later, in Matter of Petition of Boston & Albany R.R. Co., 53 N.Y. 574 (1873), the court ruled that parklands held by a village were held “upon a special trust and for public use. The village could not dispose of them or divert them from the purpose to which they were dedicated.”
More recently, in 2001, the court summarized the history of the public trust doctrine in Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 623 (2001), explaining that the state's courts “have time and again reaffirmed the principle that parkland is impressed with a public trust, requiring legislative approval before it can be alienated or used for an extended period for non-park purposes.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCourt of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
8 minute readBinding a Successor Town Board; Default on Stipulation of Settlement: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Trending Stories
- 1African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
- 2Gen AI and Associate Legal Writing: Davis Wright Tremaine's New Training Model
- 3Departing Attorneys Sue Their Former Law Firm
- 4Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
- 5'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250