FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 11:38 AM INDEX NO. 153819/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY THE COMMITTEE FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND DEVELOPMENT and THE MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, Index No. Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT v. AMSTERDAM AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES LLC and ACP AMSTERDAM III LLC, Defendants. Plaintiffs the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development and the Municipal Art Society of New York, by and through their attorneys, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP and Charles Weinstock, for their Complaint, allege as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to CPLR § 3001 seeking (a) a declaration that the zoning lot where Defendants plan to build a 55-story luxury condominium (the “New Building”) was improperly formed under Section 12-10 of the Zoning Resolution; and (b) an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants (collectively, the “Owner”) from continuing construction of the New Building. 2. The New Building would be located at 200 Amsterdam Avenue on the Upper West Side and would be the tallest building on the West Side north of 61st Street. It would fundamentally transform the character of this historic neighborhood, casting long shadows over the streets and nearby buildings, and further crowding sidewalks that are less navigable every year. It would provide no new access to open space – the ostensible zoning justification for its enormous height – where neighborhood residents could find respite from the hustle of the city. 1 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 11:38 AM INDEX NO. 153819/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018 3. The Owner obtained a building permit from the New York City Department of Buildings (“DOB”) on September 27, 2017 (the “Permit”). The Permit, however, is illegal. Section 12-10 requires that zoning lots be composed only of whole “lots of record,” i.e., tax lots “shown on the official tax map of City of New York.” Mere fragments of tax lots cannot be joined, either with each other or with whole tax lots, to create a zoning lot. But the zoning lot here does exactly that. 4. Removing any doubt that the lot is illegal, the agency that issued the underlying building permit, the New York City Department of Buildings (“DOB”), has recently confirmed — in the clearest terms — that a zoning lot, for purposes of constructing a larger new building, cannot be created by merging a whole tax lot with parts of other tax lots. 5. In May 2017, plaintiff the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development (“CFESD”) filed an administrative challenge to the Permit with the Manhattan Borough Commissioner. After the Borough Commissioner refused to revoke the Permit, CFESD appealed to the Board of Standards and Appeals (the “BSA”). The appeal is currently pending, but a resolution is still months away; the next public hearing is not scheduled until June 5, 2018. If the Owner is permitted to continue construction until the BSA decides, it may be too late to stop the building, even if the BSA agrees with DOB that the Permit should never have been issued. 6. No example better illustrates the wisdom of excluding partial tax lots than the zoning lot here, a 39-sided polygon with fragments so widely scattered across the neighboring property – the Lincoln Towers apartment complex – that its various pieces can be joined only by narrow ten-foot-wide strips of land – one of which is the length of nearly two football fields (the “Gerrymandered Zoning Lot”). Even the original recorded documents that created the lot refer -2- 2 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 11:38 AM INDEX NO. 153819/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018 to it as the “Gerrymander.” 7. The zoning lot (orange) and the proposed building (yellow) are pictured below in an image created by the Municipal Art Society using 2018 Google Earth: 8. This diagram depicts a cynical end-run around a statute meant to provide open, verdant, and genuinely usable space. This zoning lot makes a mockery of the statute. 9. From the beginning, the lot was a flagrant outlier. Its design flouts both the language and obvious intention of the statute, and depends on an interpretation of the law that has been rejected by government agencies, practicing lawyers, and legal scholars – in reports, for example, by the agency that drafted the statute for the City Planning Commission, the Department of City Planning; in the leading treatise on New York property law; and in law journal and law review articles. The Owner has been on notice that sooner or later, the -3- 3 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 11:38 AM INDEX NO. 153819/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018 Gerrymandered Zoning Lot would be found to violate the Zoning Resolution. 10. Construction is still in the excavation phase. At this point, it can be stopped with relatively little disruption. The Owner will retain the right to submit plans for a smaller building on the site, consistent with the Zoning Resolution, and the excavation work that has been done thus far will be equally useful for that project. The Owner will still be able to enjoy a high rate of return on its investment. 11. With the public hearing postponed until June, the BSA will not be able to decide the case before at least the middle of the summer. If the Owner is allowed to continue construction until then, it will argue that it is too late to undo the work. Unfortunately, the BSA does not have the authority to stay construction pending its consideration of the case. The only available remedy is an injunction by this Court. 12. In this plenary action, Plaintiffs seek a declaration stating that the Permit is illegal and an injunction barring the construction of the New Building on the Gerrymandered Zoning Lot pending the BSA’s resolution of CFESD’s appeal. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to CPLR §§ 3001 et seq. 14. Venue is proper within New York County pursuant to CPLR §§ 503 and 507 because the action arises from the siting of the building in New York County and because Plaintiffs reside in New York County. PARTIES 15. Plaintiff CFESD is a non-profit corporation founded in 1989 and organized under the laws of New York State with a principal office in New York County. It is an all-volunteer -4- 4 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 11:38 AM INDEX NO. 153819/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018 watchdog group dedicated to preserving the quality of life in an increasingly dense city. 16. Among CFESD’s volunteers are individuals who live in close proximity to the Gerrymandered Zoning Lot and stand to suffer more crowded streets and sidewalks, lost light and air, overextended infrastructure, and the general disruption of their historic neighborhood by the New Building. 17. Plaintiff the Municipal Art Society of New York (“MAS”) is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of New York State with its principal place of business at 488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1900, New York, New York 10022. Founded in 1893, the organization is dedicated to creating a more livable City by advocating for thoughtful urban planning, design, and preservation. MAS has played an integral role in the City’s land use history, helping to establish the City Planning Commission and the Landmarks Preservation Commission, saving Grand Central Terminal, restoring more than 50 works of public art, and founding the Public Art Fund, the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Waterfront Alliance, and other organizations committed to improving the city’s public spaces. 18. MAS is a membership organization, and a number of its members will be directly impacted by the 200 Amsterdam proposal at issue in this case. MAS has approximately 1,320 members citywide. On the Upper West Side, it has approximately 190 members who live in zip codes 10023, 10024, and 10025. MAS has 27 members who live within a quarter of a mile radius of the project, 17 of whom are senior members (aged 62 and up). 19. CFESD and MAS bring this suit on behalf of themselves and their members and volunteers – those who live and work on the Upper West Side, and those who live and work elsewhere but regularly visit the area, walking, shopping, biking, and otherwise taking advantage -5- 5 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 11:38 AM INDEX NO. 153819/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018 of this singular neighborhood. They will no longer be able to enjoy it in the same way if the New Building goes forward. The building will also establish a dangerous precedent for future out-of- scale mega-towers on illegally composed zoning lots. 20. Defendant Amsterdam Avenue Redevelopment Associates, LLC (“AARA”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal office in New York City. AARA is the fee owner of Lot 133 on Block 1158 of the City’s official Tax Map (the “Development Site”), and seeks to construct the New Building at that site. 21. Defendant ACP Amsterdam III, LLC (“ACP III”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal office in New York City. ACP III is the fee owner of Lot 9133, an airspace parcel directly above Lot 133. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. The Zoning Resolution and Open Space 22. The Development Site lies on a “superblock” bounded by West End Avenue, Amsterdam Avenue, and West 66th and 70th Streets.