| Sutherland v New York City Hous. Dev. Corp. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02834 [61 AD3d 479] |
| April 14, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Susan Sutherland et al., Appellants, v New York CityHousing Development Corporation et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Cheryl Payer of counsel), for NewYork City Housing Development Corporation, respondent. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York (Richard G. Leland of counsel),for AMP Apartments, Inc., respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley WernerKornreich, J.), entered July 17, 2008, which, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annulrespondent New York City Housing Development Corporation's (HDC) determinations (1) thatrespondent AMP Apartments' (AMP) housing construction project would have no significantenvironmental impact, and (2) to provide funds for affordable housing to the AMP project,denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
To the extent petitioners challenge construction of AMP's residential building as obstructingthe views from their apartments, Supreme Court correctly concluded that the challenge wasmoot. By the time this proceeding was commenced, the building project was substantiallycomplete, petitioners had failed to seek preliminary injunctive relief, there was no evidence thatconstruction work was performed in bad faith, and such work could not be readily undonewithout undue hardship (see Matter ofCitineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv.Commn., 2 NY3d 727, 729 [2004]; Matter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appealsof City of Long Beach, 98 NY2d 165, 172-173 [2002]).
To the extent petitioners challenge HDC's decision to provide tax-exempt funds allowing20% of the apartment units in the building to be designated as affordable housing for low incometenants, Supreme Court correctly concluded that petitioners lack standing. The unrefutedevidence shows that the building's structure would have been the same without HDC's funding,the only difference being that without such funding, all of the apartment units would rent atmarket rates. Accordingly, petitioners fail to establish any nexus between the view obstructioninjury they allege and HDC's funding of the project (see Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. vSyracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 NY2d 428, 433 [1990]). In addition, petitioners fail toshow that such funding caused them to suffer hardships, namely, view obstruction, not alsoexperienced by the public at large (seeNew York State Assn. of Nurse [*2]Anesthetists v Novello,2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004]; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d761, 774-775 [1991]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and DeGrasse, JJ.[See 20 Misc 3d 1115(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51354(U).]