From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Square v. Sadik-Khan

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 10, 2015
126 A.D.3d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

14459, 100888/13

03-10-2015

In re FRIENDS OF PETROSINO SQUARE, by and in the name of its President, Georgette FLEISCHER, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. Janette SADIK–KHAN, etc., et al., Respondents–Respondents.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York (Randy M. Mastro of counsel), for appellants. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Michael J. Pastor of counsel), for respondents.


Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York (Randy M. Mastro of counsel), for appellants.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Michael J. Pastor of counsel), for respondents.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, ACOSTA, DeGRASSE, GISCHE, JJ.

Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered October 24, 2013, which denied the petition challenging respondents' decision, dated April 27, 2013, to install a CitiBike Share station at Petrosino Square based on a finding that the installation did not violate the public trust doctrine, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is assumed for purposes of this decision that Petrosino Square is dedicated parkland that implicates the common-law public trust doctrine, pursuant to which “legislative approval is required when there is a substantial intrusion on parkland for non-park purposes” (Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 623, 630, 727 N.Y.S.2d 2, 750 N.E.2d 1050 [2001] ). While structures that have no connection with park purposes are not permitted to encroach upon parkland without legislative approval, structures and conveniences that are common incidents of a park serve park purposes so as not to implicate the public trust doctrine as long they contribute to or facilitate the use and enjoyment of the park (see Union Sq. Park Community Coalition, Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 22 N.Y.3d 648, 654–655, 985 N.Y.S.2d 422, 8 N.E.3d 797 [2014] ; Williams v. Gallatin, 229 N.Y. 248, 253–254, 128 N.E. 121 [1920] ).

The use of a portion of parkland for a bicycle rack used for the parking of bicycles, including the CitiBike Share station at Petrosino Square, is an appropriate incidental use of parkland to the extent it contributes to or facilitates the use and enjoyment of the park (see e.g. Blank v. Browne, 217 A.D. 624, 629, 216 N.Y.S. 664 [2d Dept.1926] [use of a portion of parkland for parking cars an appropriate incidental use] ). As the Supreme Court found, the bike share station serves the proper park purpose of allowing members of the public to ride and dock a CitiBike at Petrosino Square, where they may “enjoy the Park as a respite, a spot for a meal or even as their final destination.” Petitioners do not allege facts showing that the bike share station does not facilitate park purposes in this manner, and that it, instead, substantially undermines the use and enjoyment of the park.


Summaries of

Square v. Sadik-Khan

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 10, 2015
126 A.D.3d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Square v. Sadik-Khan

Case Details

Full title:In re Friends of Petrosino Square, by and in the name of its President…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 10, 2015

Citations

126 A.D.3d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
5 N.Y.S.3d 397
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 1895

Citing Cases

Long Island Pine Barrens Soc'y, Inc. v. Suffolk Cnty. Legislature

. Nevertheless, state legislative approval is required only when there is a substantial intrusion onto…

E. River Park Action v. City of N.Y.

Matter of Friends of Petrosino Sq. v. Sadik-Khan , which was affirmed by this Court ( 42 Misc. 3d 226, 977…