Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. The City of New York, 82 N.Y.2d 35 (1993)

An interior space that is “customarily open or accessible to the public” can be designated a landmark, regardless of whether it is “inherently” public or a commercial space like a restaurant, as long as it is habitually open and accessible to the general public.

Summary

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA) challenged the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s designation of the Four Seasons restaurant interior as a landmark. TIAA argued the designation exceeded the Commission’s authority, claiming the restaurant lacked the requisite public openness, improperly restricted future use, and included inappropriate interior furnishings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the designation, holding that the restaurant’s customary openness to the public satisfied the statutory requirement and that the designation of interior items was within the Commission’s authority.

Facts

The Four Seasons restaurant opened in 1959 in the Seagram Building, designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, with an interior by Philip Johnson. TIAA purchased the building in 1980 and agreed to propose it for landmarking. In 1987, TIAA proposed landmarking the building’s exterior, lobby, and plaza. The restaurant operators proposed landmarking the interior, which the Commission added to the calendar. The Commission landmarked the building and the Four Seasons interior in 1989, including the entrance lobby, Grill Room, Pool Room, balcony dining rooms, marble pool, walnut bar, wall/floor/ceiling surfaces, doors, railings, metal draperies, and hanging metal sculptures.

Procedural History

TIAA filed a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and plenary action to vacate the restaurant designation, alleging a lack of statutory authority, an unconstitutional taking, and impairment of free expression. The trial court dismissed the proceeding, and the Appellate Division affirmed. TIAA appealed to the Court of Appeals, limiting its arguments to statutory grounds.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Landmarks Preservation Commission exceeded its statutory authority by landmarking the interior of the Four Seasons restaurant.
2. Whether the designation impermissibly restricts the future use of the landmarked space.
3. Whether the designation improperly included certain interior furnishings.

Holding

1. Yes, because the restaurant is “customarily open or accessible to the public”, satisfying the requirements of the Landmarks Law.
2. No, because the designation does not render the space unusable for other purposes.
3. No, because the Landmarks Law does not limit the Commission’s jurisdiction to fixtures, and the designated items were integral to the interior’s design.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court held that the Landmarks Law requires an interior to be “customarily open or accessible to the public,” which means habitually available to the general public. The Court rejected TIAA’s argument that the interior must have a “distinctively public character,” noting that a restaurant invites the public to enter, similar to a theater. The Court emphasized that the statute does not require the interior to be intended as a place of assemblage and that the relevant inquiry is whether the interior is habitually open to the public. The Court stated, “The threshold requirement prescribed by the legislature is that an interior be ‘customarily open or accessible to the public, or [a place] to which the public is customarily invited.’” Regarding future use, the Court reasoned that any structure could be converted to private use, which should not preclude landmarking. The Court also found that the Commission’s jurisdiction over interior landmark designations extends to “interior architectural features,” including the architectural style, design, general arrangement, and components of an interior. The Court deferred to the Commission’s expertise in applying this provision, finding that the designated items were integral to the design of the interior space.