Citation Numbers: 158 A.D.2d 975, 551 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1517
Filed Date: 2/2/1990
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024
Plaintiff failed to establish that the city’s landmark restrictions either deprived him of "economically viable use of his property” or failed to "substantially advance legitimate State
There is no question that the city’s landmark regulations, which restricted plaintiff’s right to demolish the Hoyt-Potter House, substantially advance the city’s legitimate interest in preserving historically and architecturally significant buildings (see, Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v New York City, 438 US 104, 134, reh denied 439 US 883). Nothing in the record suggests that the designation of the Hoyt-Potter House as a landmark was unreasonable, and the defendants’ decision to protect it should therefore be upheld (Matter of Society for Ethical Culture v Spatt, supra, at 454).
In light of the city’s subsequent condemnation of the property, plaintiff’s challenge to that portion of the order denying his request for permission to demolish the building is moot (see, Lubelle v City of Rochester, 145 AD2d 954, Iv denied 74 NY2d 601). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J. — declaratory judgment.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.