Matter of Save America's Clocks, Inc. v. City of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 8457
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- 346 Broadway (New York Life Building) contains a designated interior landmark: a rare 19th-century, hand-wound tower clock and its machinery (clocktower suite), designated by the LPC in 1989. The designation expressly referenced the clock machinery and its public accessibility.
- The City sold the building in 2013 to Civic Center Community Group Broadway LLC; the deed recorded the prior landmark designation and related notice.
- The new owner applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to convert the clocktower into a private triplex residence, disconnect the clock from its mechanical mechanism, and electrify its operation; the COA proposed preserving the mechanism in place but permitting non-mechanical operation.
- LPC staff advised commissioners that the Commission lacked authority under the Landmarks Law to require continued public access to an interior landmark or to mandate continued mechanical operation; most commissioners said they preferred to require preservation of operation and access but followed counsel’s view and approved the COA.
- Petitioners filed an Article 78 challenging the COA. Supreme Court annulled parts of the COA that would (1) eliminate public access to the clocktower and (2) permit electrification (disconnection of the historic mechanism). The Appellate Division (majority) affirmed, holding LPC erred as a matter of law and acted irrationally on those points; two judges dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LPC may require continued public access to a designated interior landmark | LPC can and should require some ongoing public access; designation language and purposes of the Landmarks Law support continued accessibility | LPC lacks statutory authority to impose perpetual public-access obligations; access was not required post-designation and practical constraints exist | Majority: LPC has authority to condition approval to preserve some public access; COA annulling approval to permit total privatization affirmed. Dissent: LPC reasonably concluded it lacked authority and had a rational basis to deny access requirement. |
| Whether LPC may require the clock to continue to operate by its historic mechanical mechanism (i.e., bar electrification) | Mechanical operation is an architectural feature encompassed by the designation; LPC may regulate fixtures/components and may deny electrification to protect the mechanism | LPC may preserve the physical mechanism but cannot dictate how it is operated; operation is outside its statutory power; permitting electrification while preserving components was rational | Majority: LPC erred in concluding it lacked authority and its approval to electrify was irrational; COA annulling electrification affirmed. Dissent: LPC reasonably concluded operation (vs. preservation of parts) is outside its authority and had a rational basis to allow electrification while preserving mechanism. |
| Standard of review for LPC decisions | Agency law and statutory purpose permit review for legal error and rationality; deference not owed on pure legal questions | Argues for deference on mixed questions and agency expertise | Majority: applied rational-basis review but found legal error on statutory interpretation so no deference to counsel’s incorrect legal opinion. Dissent: gave deference and found LPC’s statutory interpretation reasonable and action rational. |
| Whether requiring access or mechanical operation would constitute a taking | No taking: owner bought subject to recorded designation; Landmarks Law serves a public purpose and restrictions are not per se takings | Requiring perpetual public access or mandated operation could be a regulatory or physical taking imposing substantial burdens | Majority: no taking because owner bought subject to designation and restriction furthers legitimate public purpose. Dissent: requiring perpetual public access might raise takings concerns under Penn Central/Nollan/Dolan framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of Am. v. City of New York, 82 N.Y.2d 35 (Court of Appeals) (discusses standard of review and scope of LPC authority over fixtures and interior landmarks)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (Supreme Court) (landmark regulation may serve substantial public purpose; takings analysis framework)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court) (exactions/takings principles requiring nexus and rough proportionality)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (Supreme Court) (takings/exactions analysis requiring rough proportionality)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court) (permanent physical occupation may be a taking)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (Supreme Court) (regulatory takings where regulation deprives owner of all economically beneficial uses)
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court) (regulatory takings require balancing; diminution alone insufficient)
- Seawall Assoc. v. City of New York, 74 N.Y.2d 92 (Court of Appeals) (discusses landmark restrictions and takings challenges)