New York Law Review

Tag: Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew v. Barwick

  • Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew v. Barwick, 67 N.Y.2d 510 (1986): Ripeness Doctrine and Land Use Regulations

    Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew v. Barwick, 67 N.Y.2d 510 (1986)

    A claim that a land-use regulation is unconstitutional as applied is not ripe for judicial review until the administrative agency has reached a final, definitive position that inflicts an actual, concrete injury, and the hardship to the challenging party is direct and immediate.

    Summary

    The Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew sought a declaratory judgment that the New York City Landmarks Law was unconstitutional as applied to its property. The church argued that the landmark designation prevented its planned renovation and construction project. The New York Court of Appeals held that the claim was not ripe for judicial review because the church had not yet sought approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission for its plans. Until the Commission acts, the extent of any potential interference with the church’s plans, and thus any constitutional injury, remains speculative.

    Facts

    The Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew, along with its parish house and parsonage, was designated a landmark by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission in 1981. Due to the deteriorating condition of the church building, the church developed a rebuilding program that included renovating the church and constructing a commercial high-rise condominium on the property to generate income. The church argued that the landmark designation prevented it from implementing its rebuilding program and subjected it to costly repair and maintenance requirements.

    Procedural History

    The church filed a declaratory judgment action arguing that the Landmarks Law was unconstitutional as applied to its property. The Supreme Court dismissed the action as not ripe. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a claim that the Landmarks Law is unconstitutional as applied to the church’s property is ripe for judicial determination when the church has not yet sought approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission for its rebuilding plans.

    Holding

    No, because until the church’s rebuilding plans are considered by the Commission pursuant to the Landmarks Law, the issue of whether there is interference with the church’s ability to carry out its charitable purpose, amounting to a constitutional injury, is not ripe for judicial determination.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court applied a two-part test derived from Abbott Labs. v. Gardner to determine ripeness: (1) whether the issues are appropriate for judicial resolution, and (2) whether there is hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied. The court found that the issue was not appropriate for judicial resolution because the administrative action was not final. The effect of the Landmarks Law on the church’s rebuilding program was incomplete and undetermined, as the church had not sought approval from the Commission. Without a final decision from the Commission, it was impossible to determine the extent of any interference with the church’s plans. The court noted the importance of conserving judicial resources for real and present problems, not abstract or hypothetical ones, quoting 4 Davis, Administrative Law § 25:1. The court further reasoned that the hardship to the church was not direct and immediate. The church’s plans included renovation of the church that, if approved, would satisfy the statutory requirements it claimed the designation caused it to violate. The court emphasized that, “The potential for such administrative solutions confirms the conclusion that the taking issue decided by the District Court simply is not ripe for judicial resolution.”