Jo & Wo Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 74 N.Y.2d 962 (1989)
A public authority, having acquired property at its own expense, may sell that property without adhering to the competitive bidding requirements typically imposed on the City, even if the City retains a contingent reversionary interest.
Summary
This case concerns the sale of the New York Coliseum by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) to Boston Properties without competitive bidding. The plaintiff, Jo & Wo Realty Corp., challenged the sale, arguing that it violated the New York City Charter’s competitive bidding requirements. The Court of Appeals held that because the TBTA acquired the property at its own expense, it was authorized to sell it without competitive bidding, even though the City had a contingent reversionary interest. This decision clarifies the scope of a public authority’s power to dispose of property it owns and developed.
Facts
In 1953, the TBTA purchased property from the City of New York as part of an urban renewal project, paying $2.1 million. The TBTA developed the property into the New York Coliseum. Years later, after the Javits Convention Center was built, the TBTA found the Coliseum economically unsustainable and decided to sell it to Boston Properties without competitive bidding. The Public Authorities Law authorized the City to convey land to the TBTA for as long as the TBTA’s corporate existence continued.
Procedural History
The plaintiff, Jo & Wo Realty Corp., challenged the sale, alleging that it violated the New York City Charter’s competitive bidding requirements. The lower courts ruled in favor of the City and TBTA. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the City of New York and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) may sell real property to a private developer without complying with the competitive bidding requirements of section 384 of the New York City Charter, where the TBTA acquired the property at its own expense.
Holding
Yes, because the Public Authorities Law authorizes the TBTA to sell property acquired at its own expense without competitive bidding, and the City’s contingent reversionary interest does not alter this authority.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on interpreting the relevant statutes within the Public Authorities Law. The court emphasized that the TBTA acquired the property at its own expense, distinguishing it from property conveyed to the TBTA by the City without consideration. The court cited Public Authorities Law § 553 (4-a) (b), which allows the TBTA to sell or convey property “acquired by the city at the expense of the authority.” According to the court, this provision authorized the sale without competitive bidding. The court also addressed the plaintiff’s argument that the City retained ownership with a reversion to the City. The court stated that the TBTA could convey both its interest and the City’s contingent reversionary interest “in behalf of [the] city” (Public Authorities Law § 553 [4-a] [b]). The court cited Matter of New York Post Corp. v Moses, 10 NY2d 199, 205. The court declined to address the plaintiff’s argument concerning the Urban Renewal Law, deeming it unnecessary in light of its statutory interpretation. The court’s reasoning underscores the principle that specific statutory provisions governing public authorities can override general municipal requirements regarding competitive bidding when the authority has independently funded the acquisition and development of the property.