Land Use—Article 78 Proceeding Challenging Brooklyn Pier 6 Project Dismissed—Supplemental EIS Was Not Required—Height Limitations Did Not Include Mechanicals—Rising Real Estate Market Is Not A SEQRA Consideration

bypassed legal restrictions, 2) ignored their own procedural guidelines, 3) based their decision on misinformation which BBPC management provided, 4) improperly failed to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), which would have reassessed the financial need for such tall buildings to sustain the Park and the impact on the overcrowded elementary schools…, along with other changed circumstances, 5) ignored a critical mandate to approve development only to the extent needed to support the park, 6) did not obtain the requisite modification to the General Project Plan (GPP), including the addition of permission to construct affordable housing and the addition of three floors of mechanicals on the building on Parcel B, and 7) did not provide the Brooklyn Bridge Park Community Advisory Council (Community Advisory Council) with all the documents and other information it requested.

i.e. Save the View Now v. Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation inter alia inter alia Disclosure: Save the View Now v. Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation Brooklyn Heights Ass'n v. N.Y.S. Urban Dev. Corp., Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co., Index No. 155641/2016, decided Feb. 15, 2018, St. George, J.

Landlord-Tenant—NYC Housing Authority Wrongfully Sued Tenants Based On“Overlapping Rent Claims”—Sanctions Imposed On NYCHA

N.Y.C. Hous. Auth. v. Various Tenants, Civ. Ct., Bx. Co., Index No. 802957/17, decided Feb. 22, 2018, Sanchez, J. Scott E. Mollen is a partner at Herrick, Feinstein.