Judges： Kern
Filed Date： 10/23/2013
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
OPINION OF THE COURT
Petitioners bring the instant petition pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules challenging respondents New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the City of New York’s (the City) decision to install a bike share station in the park known as Lieutenant Joseph Petrosino Square Park (Petrosino Park or the park). For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied.
The relevant facts are as follows. Petrosino Park is located at the intersection of the Manhattan neighborhoods known as SoHo, Little Italy, NoHo and Chinatown. It is bordered by Spring Street to its north, Kenmare Street to its south, Lafayette Street to its west and Cleveland Place to its east. The park was built in 1913 and was originally known as Kenmare Memorial Park. In 1987, it was renamed to Petrosino Park in honor of an Italian police officer who served the city in the early 1900s.
In 2002, after the park had fallen into disrepair, community members began a campaign to revitalize the park. Thereafter, an overhaul of the park began, during which the park expanded 20 feet west, reclaiming a seldom-used lane of traffic in Lafayette Street, and expanded 156 feet north toward Spring Street, adding a total of 5,050 square feet to the previous 6,000-square-foot park. The pavement and many of the trees were replaced and the fencing and original piers were preserved to maintain the architectural features of the 1913 design. The official park dedication ceremony occurred on Columbus Day, October 13, 2009, with DPR’s Commissioner presiding before a collection of Italian dignitaries and on May 20, 2012, DPR’s Art & Antiquities Director presided over the opening of the inaugural art exhibit in the art installation space.
In August 2011, DOT announced the New York City bike share program (the program). The New York City Department of City Planning then conducted a feasibility study of the program in New York City and the DOT undertook a multi-year public planning process to determine the location of the bike share stations, which included many public meetings, presentations and demonstrations, as well as meetings with elected officials, property owners and other stakeholders. On February 6, 2012, members of Community Board 2 (CB2) attended DOT’s bike share community planning workshop where they learned that DOT proposed installing a bike share station in the art installation space of the park. Petitioners allege that the community members present at the meeting objected to that location and suggested a number of other possible locations, including a location on the east side of Lafayette Street and north of Spring Street and on Cleveland Place. Additionally, Friends of Petrosino Square sent a letter to DOT memorializing its objection. DPR landscape architect, Chris Crowley, seconded the objection, stating that there “was a lot of effort during the designing phase to preserve the front triangle of Petrosino for art display.” Additionally, DPR Manhattan Borough Commissioner William Castro, through his Chief of Staff, Steven Simon, agreed, stating that “this is not an appropriate location for a bike station.”
On April 24, 2013, DOT notified several community members that the bike share station would be placed on the “northern side” of the park. The next day, community members observed workers preparing to install the bike share station inside the park, and when confronted by the community members, the workers left the site without making any installation. However, on April 27, 2013, the bike share station was installed in the northern portion of Petrosino Park. Petitioners then commenced this article 78 proceeding by order to show cause seeking to preliminarily enjoin respondents from maintaining the bike share station in the northern corner of the park.
Initially, this court finds that the placement of the bike share station in the park does not violate the public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine prohibits the alienation or substantial intrusion of dedicated parkland for other than park purposes without approval of the New York State Legislature. (See Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v City of New York, 95 NY2d 623 [2001]; see also Williams v Gallatin, 229 NY 248 [1920].) To determine whether there has been a violation pursuant to the public trust doctrine, the court must first determine whether the land at issue is actually dedicated parkland, either explicitly or implicitly. (See Matter of Angiolillo v Town of Greenburgh,
Based on the undisputed evidence, this court finds that the park is impliedly dedicated parkland for purposes of the public trust doctrine. As an initial matter, the park has been held out by the DPR and DOT as a park since its creation in the early 1900s. Although the park fell into disrepair at one time, the park was renovated and continues to be used and enjoyed as a park to this day. Additionally, signage in and around the park bears the DPR name and logos and the signs themselves describe the park as a “public space” and “park.” Further, DPR’s Commissioner sponsored the groundbreaking renovation of the park in 2008 and eventually presided over an official park dedication ceremony held on the southwest corner of the park in October 2009. Additionally, city officials, including DPR’s Art & Antiquities Director, presided over and dedicated the northern tip of the park as the art installation space.
Although the park is impliedly dedicated parkland, this court finds that the placement of the bike share station in the park does not violate the public trust doctrine as it is a proper park purpose. “The test of a nonpark [purpose] ... is not whether the facility attracts people who are not already in the park . . .
“[a] park is a pleasure ground set apart for recreation of the public, to promote its health and enjoyment. It need not and should not be a mere field or open space, but no objects, however worthy, such as court houses and school houses, which have no connection with park purposes, should be permitted to encroach upon it without legislative authority plainly conferred . . . Differences naturally arise as to the meaning of the phrase ‘park purposes.’ . . . [M]any other common incidents of a pleasure ground contribute to the use and enjoyment of the park. The end of all such embellishments and conveniences is substantially the same public good. They facilitate free public means of pleasure, recreation and amusement and thus provide for the welfare of the community.” (Williams, 229 NY at 253-254 [citations omitted].)
Moreover, the New York City Charter grants DPR’s Commissioner wide latitude regarding proper park facilities. (See NY City Charter § 533 [a] [1], [3].) DPR’s Commissioner is “vested by law with broad powers for the maintenance and improvement of the city’s parks.” (795 Fifth Ave. Corp. v City of New York, 15 NY2d 221, 225 [1965].) Further, the Commissioner is empowered with “abundant discretion to satisfy changing concepts of parkland use.” (795 Fifth Ave. Corp. v City of New York, 40 Misc 2d 183, 193 [Sup Ct, NY County 1963].) Proper park uses may change over time and, generally, improvements to parks must always be encouraged. (See 795 Fifth Ave. Corp., 40 Misc 2d at 192-193 [“The realities of our everyday city life require that every attempt to improve a park so as to better satisfy human needs for relaxation, refreshment and enjoyment should be encouraged rather than be met with strong opposition . . . (a)s times change, park uses change”].)
In the instant case, the court finds that the bike share station is a proper park purpose for purposes of the public trust doctrine. As an initial matter, respondents have provided evidence that bicycling is an important form of recreation that has had a proper “park purpose” for many years demonstrated by
Petitioners’ assertion that the bike share station is an improper park use because it is placed there as part of a purely commuter-transit program is without merit. Respondents have affirmed that from its inception, the program was meant to encourage use of bicycles in New York City for commuting and recreation by residents and tourists alike. The fact that many commuters use the program is irrelevant to a determination that it serves a proper park purpose as the program may serve dual purposes. Those who participate in the program may use the bicycles for commuting to and from work or for recreation to transport themselves to restaurants, bars, parks and countless other venues for entertainment. The program places no limitation on the proper use of the bicycles but only on the amount of time a patron of the program may reserve a specific bicycle. If a program participant wants to bike around the city for many hours at a time, the participant may certainly do so and the only limitation placed on such participant is that he or she must use different bicycles at the various stations around the city.
Petitioners’ assertion that the bike share station is an improper park use because the program charges a fee is also unavailing. Concessions with fees such as bike rentals, boat rentals, cafes and ice skating rinks are common in parks and have consistently been upheld as proper by the courts. (See Matter of Committee to Preserve Brighton Beach & Manhattan Beach v Planning Commn. of City of N.Y., 259 AD2d 26 [1st Dept 1999] [rejecting claim that concession to construct and operate a golf-driving range, a miniature golf course, a domed in-line skating rink and batting cages violated the public trust doctrine because the operator would charge a fee for some services].)
Additionally, petitioners’ assertion that the bike share station is an improper park use because one cannot bicycle within the
Additionally, this court finds that respondents’ decision to site a bike share station in the park was rational. On review of an article 78 petition, “[t]he law is well settled that the courts may not overturn the decision of an administrative agency which has a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious.” (Matter of Goldstein v Lewis, 90 AD2d 748, 749 [1st Dept 1982].) “In applying the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard, a court inquires whether the determination under review had a rational basis.” (Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2d Dept 2005]; see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974] [“(r)ationality is what is reviewed under both the substantial evidence rule and the arbitrary and capricious standard”].) “The arbitrary or capricious test chiefly ‘relates to whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified . . . and whether the administrative action is without foundation in fact.’ Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to facts.” (Pell, 34 NY2d at 231 [cita
In the instant matter, the petition must be denied on the ground that respondents’ decision to site the bike share station in its location in the northern part of the park was rational. Respondents have affirmed that the bike share station in the park was sited in accordance with the program’s siting guidelines and based on technical considerations and an extensive public input process, which included public hearings and community meetings. Specifically, DOT found that the park was an appropriate location as it enjoyed support during the planning process; it does not interfere with local businesses or fire access routes; it is centrally located at the convergence of several distinct neighborhoods; it offers a convenient and safe place for people to begin and end rides; it allows for wide sidewalk clearance for pedestrians; it is located near a public seating area that is within the fenced-in area of the park; and the park has long had and still has public bicycle racks on site. Additionally, the siting guidelines specifically provide that “[s]ites may be on Parks Department property or on other City properties at the discretion of the relevant agency.”
Petitioners’ assertion that DOT’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because there were alternative locations for the bike share station and because the DOT ignored community feedback when deciding to site the bike share station in the park is without merit. As an initial matter, the fact that DOT ultimately selected a location disfavored by petitioners does not support a finding that such decision was arbitrary and capricious. (See Association for Community Reform Now [“ACORN”] v Bloomberg, 52 AD3d 426 [1st Dept 2008] [upholding the rejection of petitioners’ claim that the agency’s decision was irrational because it rejected proposed alternative locations for its siting decision].) Indeed, respondents have affirmed that many members of the community supported the location of the bike share station at issue. Additionally, when certain community members raised objections to the location in the park, representatives from DOT visited the site and entertained the option of siting the bike share station at other locations in the area. However, after the FDNY and others objected to the new locations due to safety and traffic concerns, DOT determined that
Petitioners’ assertion that DOT’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because the placement of the bike share station violates the provisions of the siting guidelines which state that sidewalk sites “should not interfere with existing pedestrian travel patterns” and must have sufficient sidewalk space is also without merit. Petitioners base such assertion on their observations that “pedestrians are constantly dodging bikes” and that when the bikes are docked in the bike share station, there is “only a little more than three feet of clearance” in some places. However, Kate Fillin-Yeh, the director of the program, affirms that the bike share station “is surrounded on the west, east and north sides by at least six feet of sidewalk space, allowing pedestrians a wide berth . . . .” Furthermore, petitioners fail to point to any portion of the siting guidelines that state that at least three feet of sidewalk space is an insufficient amount of space for pedestrians to adequately maneuver on the sidewalk or that the location of the bike share station interferes with pedestrian travel patterns, such as crosswalks.
Finally, that portion of the petition which requests a preliminary injunction enjoining respondents from maintaining the bike share station in the park for the remainder of this proceeding is denied as moot as this court has determined that the petition must be dismissed.
Accordingly, the petition is denied and is hereby dismissed in its entirety.