Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 623 (2000)
Parkland is impressed with a public trust, and any substantial intrusion on parkland for non-park purposes, even if temporary or underground with eventual restoration, requires explicit legislative approval from the state.
Summary
This case addresses whether New York City needed state legislative approval to build a water treatment plant under the Mosholu Golf Course in Van Cortlandt Park. The City argued that because the plant would be mostly underground and the parkland restored, no legislative approval was needed. The New York Court of Appeals held that because the project involved a significant, long-term (over five years) disruption of park use for a non-park purpose, it required explicit legislative approval, regardless of eventual restoration or the fact that the facility was primarily underground. This decision reinforces the public trust doctrine protecting parkland from encroachment without explicit legislative authorization.
Facts
New York City planned to build a water treatment plant to filter water from the Croton Watershed, a major source of the City’s drinking water. The City selected the Mosholu Golf Course in Van Cortlandt Park as the site. The project involved constructing a 473,000 square foot industrial facility covering 23 acres. The golf course would be closed for over five years during construction. While the plant was designed to be built underground, its roof would be between five and 30 feet above the existing ground elevation. Vents and air intake louvers would also extend above the finished grade. Construction would require demolition of existing structures and removal of a million cubic yards of soil and rock. Citizen groups and some state legislators opposed the project, arguing it was an unauthorized conversion of parkland.
Procedural History
The State Attorney General advised the City that legislative approval was needed. When the City did not seek approval, the State sought relief in federal district court based on a consent decree. Citizen groups also filed lawsuits in state court to enjoin construction, which were removed to federal court. The District Court granted summary judgment to the City, finding no legislative approval was required. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question of whether state legislative approval was needed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Does any aspect of the proposed water treatment plant require state legislative approval, considering it involves a non-park use of parkland, a significant construction period disrupting park access, and the placement of a substantial underground structure?
Holding
Yes, because the construction of the water treatment plant involves a substantial intrusion on parkland for a non-park purpose, and the public will be deprived of valued park uses for at least five years, explicit legislative approval is required.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied heavily on the precedent set by Williams v. Gallatin, which established that parkland is held in public trust and cannot be used for non-park purposes without clear legislative authorization. The court emphasized that legislative approval is needed when there is a substantial intrusion on parkland for non-park purposes, regardless of whether there’s an outright transfer of title or whether the parkland is ultimately restored. The court reasoned that the five-year construction period and the inhibition of future uses of the land by the underground structure constituted a significant intrusion. Even though the water treatment plant served an important public purpose, the Court reaffirmed the principle that dedicated park areas are impressed with a public trust for the benefit of the people of the State. Quoting Ackerman v. Steisel, the court stated that the use of parkland “for other than park purposes, either for a period of years or permanently, requires the direct and specific approval of the State Legislature, plainly conferred.” The court distinguished the case from situations involving de minimis exceptions to the public trust doctrine, emphasizing the magnitude of the proposed project. The court also found it unnecessary to address General City Law § 20(2), basing its decision on common law principles. The court explicitly stated that “no objects, however worthy, * * * which have no connection with park purposes, should be permitted to encroach upon [parkland] without legislative authority plainly conferred.”