Union Square Park Community Coalition, Inc. v. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, 22 N.Y.3d 64 (2013)
Operating a seasonal restaurant in a public park under a license agreement with significant governmental control does not violate the public trust doctrine if the restaurant serves a valid park purpose, and the agreement is a license, not an unauthorized lease.
Summary
The Union Square Park Community Coalition challenged the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation’s agreement to allow a restaurant to operate in Union Square Park, alleging violations of the public trust doctrine. The New York Court of Appeals held that the restaurant served a valid park purpose and the agreement was a license, not a lease, and therefore did not violate the public trust doctrine. The court emphasized the broad discretion of the Parks Commissioner in determining valid park purposes and the importance of a termination clause in defining a license versus a lease.
Facts
The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (the Department) entered into a “License Agreement” with Chef Driven Market, LLC (CDM) to operate a seasonal restaurant in the pavilion of Union Square Park for 15 years. The restaurant was to operate from mid-April to mid-October, daily from 7:00 a.m. to midnight. CDM agreed to pay an annual license fee and make significant capital improvements. The Department retained extensive control over the restaurant’s operations, including menu approval, pricing, and hours. The agreement required CDM to use Union Square Park Greenmarket vendors and offer community programs. The agreement contained a termination clause allowing the Department to terminate the license at will, provided such termination was not arbitrary and capricious.
Procedural History
The Union Square Park Community Coalition, Inc. and others sued the Department, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, claiming the restaurant violated the public trust doctrine. The Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction against the city, but the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the operation of a restaurant in Union Square Park constitutes a nonpark purpose, requiring legislative approval under the public trust doctrine?
2. Whether the agreement between the Department and CDM constitutes a lease, which would be an improper alienation of parkland, or a license?
Holding
1. No, because the restaurant serves a valid park purpose and the Parks Commissioner has broad discretion in determining what constitutes a park purpose.
2. No, because the agreement contains a broad termination clause and the Department retained significant control over the restaurant’s operations, indicating a license rather than a lease.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that under the public trust doctrine, dedicated parkland cannot be converted to a nonpark purpose for an extended period without legislative approval. Citing 795 Fifth Ave. Corp. v City of New York, the Court emphasized the broad powers of the Park Commissioner in maintaining and improving city parks, with judicial interference justified only when a total lack of power is shown. The Court stated that it is for the courts to determine what is and is not a park purpose, the Commissioner enjoys broad discretion to choose among alternative valid park purposes.
The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument for a flexible, multifactor analysis to determine whether a restaurant serves a park purpose, stating that such an approach was eschewed in 795 Fifth Ave. The court found that, similar to the claims in 795 Fifth Ave., the plaintiffs’ disagreement with the Department’s plan did not demonstrate its illegality.
Addressing whether the agreement constituted a lease or a license, the Court explained that a lease grants the exclusive right to use and occupy land, while a license is a revocable privilege to do temporary acts on another’s land. The Court noted that the agreement’s language, the Department’s significant control over operations, and the broad termination clause indicated a license. Quoting Miller v City of New York, the court noted that “the right to cancel whenever it decides in good faith to do so” is strongly indicative of a license as opposed to a lease.
The Court concluded that the Department’s grant of a license to CDM to operate the restaurant was lawful and did not violate the public trust doctrine.