In the Matter of Senator Tony Avella, et al., Respondents,v.City of New York, et al., Respondents, Queens Development Group, LLC, et al., Appellants.BriefN.Y.April 25, 2017Appeal No. APL-2015-00298 Argument requested Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 100161/14 State of New York Court of Appeals SENATOR TONY AVELLA, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs-Respondents, For a Judgment Pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 78 and General Municipal Law § 51 and for a Declaration Pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001 -against- CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents-Defendants-Respondents, -and- QUEENS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, et al., Respondents-Defendants-Appellants. BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE THE STATE OF NEW YORK BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General ANDREW RHYS DAVIES Assistant Solicitor General of Counsel ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Amicus Curiae the State of New York 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8018 (212) 416-8962 (facsimile) Dated: October 21, 2016 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................ iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................................... 4 A. Factual Background ......................................................... 4 1. The persistent pollution of Willets Point from the early twentieth century onwards ....................... 4 2. The City of New York’s acquisition of Willets West and use of the site as a parking lot ................. 7 3. The Legislature authorizes the construction of Shea Stadium at Willets West, which becomes a parking lot again when the stadium is demolished in 2009 ................................................. 10 4. The City’s proposal to remediate and develop Willets Point and Willets West .............................. 13 B. This Article 78 Proceeding ............................................. 16 1. Supreme Court’s dismissal of the proceeding ........ 17 2. The Appellate Division’s reversal .......................... 18 ARGUMENT .................................................................................. 20 A. The City’s Proposed Development Fits Within the Public Purposes That the Legislature Has Authorized for Willets West. ......................................... 20 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Page B. The Proposed Development Will Also Help to Advance the Statutory Public Purposes in Other Ways. .............................................................................. 28 CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 32 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Bates v. Holbrook, 171 N.Y. 460 (1902) ................................................................... 21 Brooklyn Park Comm’rs v. Armstrong, 45 N.Y. 234 (1871) ..................................................................... 21 Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of N.Y., 95 N.Y.2d 623 (2001) ........................................................... 16, 20 Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95 (2001) ................................................................... 25 Matter of Glick v. Harvey, 25 N.Y.3d 1175 (2015) ............................................................... 16 Matter of N.Y. County Lawyers’ Ass’n v. Bloomberg, 19 N.Y.3d 712 (2012) ................................................................. 21 Matter of Walker, 64 N.Y.2d 354 (1985) ................................................................. 27 Matter of Westchester Joint Water Works v. Assessor of Rye, 27 N.Y.3d 566 (2016) ................................................................. 25 Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v. Snow, 26 N.Y.3d 466 (2015) ................................................................. 24 People v. M&H Used Auto Parts & Cars, Inc., 22 A.D.3d 135 (2d Dep’t 2005) ..................................................... 6 People v. Marquan M., 24 N.Y.3d 1 (2014) ..................................................................... 21 Union Square Park Cmty. Coal., Inc. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Parks & Recreation, 22 N.Y.3d 648 (2014) ................................................................. 20 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Laws Page(s) Ch. 544, 1936 N.Y. Laws 1298 ......................................................... 7 Environmental Conservation Law § 27-1409 .................................................................................... 30 § 27-1411 .................................................................................... 30 § 27-1415 .................................................................................... 30 § 27-1419 .................................................................................... 30 § 27-1421 .................................................................................... 30 N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 18-118 .................................... passim N.Y.C. Charter, ch. 2, §§ 21-49 ...................................................... 11 Miscellaneous Authorities 2 The Flushing Meadow Improvement (Mar. 1937) ........................ 5 2 The Flushing Meadow Improvement (Aug. 1937) ........................ 8 August Loeb, Fine Park From Fair, N.Y. Times (Oct. 27, 1940), at http://tinyurl.com/NYTFinePark ............................ 8 Barbara Stewart, 28 in Queens are Charged in Pollution at Junkyards, N.Y. Times (Apr. 26, 2001), at http://tinyurl.com/NYT28inQueens ......................................... 6 City to Use World Fair Site in Free Parking Experiment, N.Y. Times (Nov. 9, 1947), at http://tinyurl.com/NYTFreeParkingExperiment .................... 9 Flushing Meadow Park, N.Y. Times (May 1, 1942), at http://tinyurl.com/NYTFlushingMeadowPark ............................ 9 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Miscellaneous Authorities Page(s) Gotti Son-in-Law Sentenced to 9 Years and $10 Million Forfeiture, N.Y. Times (Oct. 27, 2001), at http://tinyurl.com/NYTGottiSentenced ....................................... 5 Juan Forero, Undercover Scrap Operation Leads to Gotti Relative, N.Y. Times (Jan. 26, 2000), at http://tinyurl.com/NYTUndercoverScrapOp ............................... 5 Message of the Governor Transmitting Papers in Reference to World’s Fair in 1939, with Recommendations (Jan. 15, 1936), 1936 N.Y. Legis. Doc. No. 62 ................................................... 7, 8 Moses Visualizes Park After Fair, N.Y. Times (May 15, 1939), at http://tinyurl.com/NYTMosesVisualizes ...................... 8 N.Y.C. Dep’t of City Planning, Glossary of Planning Terms, at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/glossary.p age .............................................................................................. 15 N.Y. State Office of the Att’y General, Press Release: Queens Dismantler Found Guilty of Environmental Law Violations (Sept. 30, 2002), at http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/queens- dismantler-found-guilty-environmental-law- violations ...................................................................................... 6 N.Y. State Office of the Att’y General, Press Release: Shea Stadium Junkyards Indicted for Environmental Crimes (Apr. 25, 2001), at http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/shea-stadium- junkyards-indicted-environmental-crimes .................................. 6 Official Guide Book of the New York World’s Fair 1939 (1939) ........................................................................................... 8 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Miscellaneous Authorities Page(s) Statutes, 1 McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N.Y. (1971) ....................... 27 United States Dep’t of Justice, Press Release: Organized Crime Member Carmine Agnello, 5 Associates, and Scrap Metal Company Plead Guilty to Racketeering, Extortion, Arson, “VIN” Obliteration and Income Tax Fraud (Aug. 16, 2001), at https://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/usaopress/ 2001/txdv012001aug16.htm ........................................................ 5 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The State of New York, through the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), oversees statewide efforts to protect and conserve New York’s natural resources. As relevant here, those efforts have included attempts to address the intractable problem of pollution at Willets Point, a sixty-one-acre parcel of land in Queens, New York. This suit arises from a plan that the City of New York has developed to clean up Willets Point and transform the area into a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood. At issue is whether the State Legislature’s enactment of § 18-118 of the New York City Administrative Code (“Admin. Code § 18-118”) authorizes the component of the City’s plan that calls for developing a thirty-one- acre neighboring parcel of land, known as Willets West, into a retail and entertainment center that will provide jobs and recreational space for residents of the new neighborhood. The City acquired Willets West by condemnation in the 1930s, with the intention of eventually transforming it into a public park. But the City never accomplished that aim. Instead, 2 Willets West functioned as a public parking lot until the Legislature, through Admin. Code § 18-118, authorized the construction of Shea Stadium on the site in the 1960s. And since the demolition of Shea Stadium in 2009, Willets West has become a parking lot again. Under the City’s plan, Willets Point and the surrounding area will be remediated and developed in two phases. In the first phase, respondents-appellants—the Queens Development Group and various related entities—will clean up a significant portion of Willets Point, under the supervision of DEC, in accordance with the state’s Brownfield Cleanup Program; appellants will also install essential infrastructure such as drainage systems and roads, and develop business and recreational space at Willets West and a portion of Willets Point. The second phase will see the remaining portion of Willets Point redeveloped into mixed-income housing, a school, retail and office space, and several acres of public open space. The State of New York submits this brief as amicus curiae to explain that Admin. Code § 18-118 can and should be interpreted 3 to permit the City’s proposed development of Willets West, which will promote the public purposes for which § 18-118 authorizes that parcel to be used. The development is expected to transform an area that is now used as a parking lot into a center for commerce and recreation. Moreover, discontinuance of the development could jeopardize the City’s existing plan to secure remediation of the environmental contamination of Willets Point and Willets West with limited expenditure of public funds. 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Factual Background 1. The persistent pollution of Willets Point from the early twentieth century onwards Willets Point is a sixty-one-acre parcel of land in Queens, New York, that has been a dumping ground for industrial and domestic waste for over a century. (A. 160.1) In the early twentieth century, the Brooklyn Ash Removal Company used it as a repository for ashes generated by incinerated garbage, depositing some fifty million cubic yards of ash there—approximately one hundred railroad cars every day for three decades. The layer of ash was up to thirty feet in depth, and peaks of this detritus rose ninety feet into the air. (A. 149; R.A. 17, 683.) In addition to reeking of smoke and trash, the heap served as a breeding ground 1 “A.” references petitioners’ appendix in the Appellate Division (Volume 1 of the Appendix before this Court). “R.A.” references appellant’s appendix in the Appellate Division (Volumes 2-5 of the Appendix before this Court). 5 for disease-spreading mosquitoes and flies. See 2 The Flushing Meadow Improvement at 15-16, 18 (Mar. 1937) (Add. 29-30, 32).2 Since World War II, Willets Point has been occupied by industrial manufacturers, junkyards and auto repair shops that have added to the toxicity of the soil by illegally dumping oil, petroleum, antifreeze, transmission fluid, paints and cleaning solvents. (A. 149-150; R.A. 8, 11, 18, 103-108.) By the late twentieth century, Willets Point was also a notorious center of auto-related crime and insurance fraud. (R.A. 10, 117, 118.)3 In the late 1990s, New York City Police Department officers investigating organized crime in Willets Point alerted the Office of 2 Pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 500.1(h), copies of publications that are not readily available are being submitted in a separately filed addendum to this brief, which is cited in the format “Add. __.” 3 See also Gotti Son-in-Law Sentenced to 9 Years and $10 Million Forfeiture, N.Y. Times (Oct. 27, 2001); United States Dep’t of Justice, Press Release: Organized Crime Member Carmine Agnello, 5 Associates, and Scrap Metal Company Plead Guilty to Racketeering, Extortion, Arson, “VIN” Obliteration and Income Tax Fraud (Aug. 16, 2001) (URL in Authorities); Juan Forero, Undercover Scrap Operation Leads to Gotti Relative, N.Y. Times (Jan. 26, 2000). 6 the New York State Attorney General to the presence of widespread environmental crimes in the area. In April 2001, the Attorney General’s Office filed criminal and civil charges against twenty-one Willets Point junkyards and thirty-five individuals for dumping enormous quantities of toxic materials into the ground and into the adjacent Flushing River. (R.A. 119.)4 Almost all of the defendants entered into plea and settlement agreements. See N.Y. State Office of the Att’y General, Press Release: Queens Dismantler Found Guilty of Environmental Law Violations (Sept. 30, 2002) (URL in Authorities). Those who did not plead guilty were convicted at trial. See id.; People v. M&H Used Auto Parts & Cars, Inc., 22 A.D.3d 135 (2d Dep’t 2005). Recent environmental studies show likely contamination in nearly every part of Willets Point and the groundwater beneath it. (A. 293; R.A. 11, 103-108, 634, 683.) And the risks to public health 4 See also N.Y. State Office of the Att’y General, Press Release: Shea Stadium Junkyards Indicted for Environmental Crimes (Apr. 25, 2001) (URL in Authorities); Barbara Stewart, 28 in Queens are Charged in Pollution at Junkyards, N.Y. Times (Apr. 26, 2001). 7 from that contamination are exacerbated by Willets Point’s location next to the Flushing River, in a floodplain lacking basic drainage infrastructure such as sewers and storm drains. (A. 76, 160-161, 318 (Final Supp. Envtl. Impact Statement (FSEIS) at 9- 3, Fig. 9-1, 9-10); R.A. 5, 657 (map of project site).) Absent preventive measures, climate change and rising sea levels will cause much of Willets Point to flood every twenty years by the middle of this century, and even more frequently by the end of the century. (A. 318 (FSEIS at 9-8, 9-10–9-11).) 2. The City of New York’s acquisition of Willets West and use of the site as a parking lot In the mid-1930s, the City of New York acquired land in Queens, New York for the purpose of hosting the 1939 World’s Fair.5 The land included the thirty-acre parcel now known as Willets West (A. 142, R.A. 657 (map of project site)) that the City 5 See Message of the Governor Transmitting Papers in Reference to World’s Fair in 1939, with Recommendations (Jan. 15, 1936), 1936 N.Y. Legis. Doc. No. 62, at 4, 16, 33 (Add. 5, 11, 16); see also ch. 544, 1936 N.Y. Laws 1298 (authorizing the City to lease that land to the organizers of World’s Fair). 8 used as a parking lot for World’s Fair visitors. See Official Guide Book of the New York World’s Fair 1939 (1939), at 10 (Add. 41) (map showing Willets West as the “Roosevelt Avenue Parking Field”).6 The City “intended that, at the conclusion of the Fair,” the World’s Fair site would “become part of the permanent park system of the City of New York.” See Message of the Governor Transmitting Papers in Reference to World’s Fair in 1939, with Recommendations, supra, at 4 (Add. 5). New York City Parks Commissioner Robert Moses announced that when the Fair was over, the entire site would be cleared and transformed into 1,200 acres of landscaped parkland that would evoke Versailles. See Moses Visualizes Park After Fair, N.Y. Times (May 15, 1939), at 17. At Willets West, Moses aspired to build a full-size football field, twelve baseball diamonds, forty handball courts, and fifty tennis courts. See id.; see also August Loeb, Fine Park From Fair, 6 See also 2 The Flushing Meadow Improvement, at 6 (Aug. 1937) (Add. 38) (map showing Willets Point as “Parking Field— Department of Parks—Recreation Area After the Fair”). (See also R.A. 657.) 9 N.Y. Times (Oct. 27, 1940), at 141. But when the World’s Fair closed in 1940, the world was at war and the park project was put on hold until “happier times.” See Flushing Meadow Park, N.Y. Times (May 1, 1942), at 18. Ultimately, Willets West was never developed into the anticipated city park. In 1947, the Mayor’s Special Traffic Committee acquired the site to create a free commuter parking lot to ease traffic congestion in Manhattan. See City to Use World Fair Site in Free Parking Experiment, N.Y. Times (Nov. 9, 1947), at 1.7 Willets West remained a parking lot until 1964. (A. 318 (FSEIS 10-2); R.A. 683.) 7 The article references the land bounded by Northern Boulevard, 126th Street, Grand Central Parkway Extension and Roosevelt Avenue. That area includes Willets West. (See R.A. 657.) 10 3. The Legislature authorizes the construction of Shea Stadium at Willets West, which becomes a parking lot again when the stadium is demolished in 2009 In 1961, the Legislature enacted a statute authorizing, inter alia, the construction of a stadium on a parcel of parkland in Flushing Meadow, Queens. See Admin. Code § 18-118(c)(1), (e) (Add. 1-2).8 Willets West falls within that parcel. (R.A. 657 (map of project site).) The statute permits the City to “enter into contracts, leases or rental agreements” or “grant licenses, permits, concessions or other authorizations,” under which any person or persons “are granted the right, for any purpose or purposes referred to in subdivision b” of the statute, “to use, occupy or carry on activities in, the whole or any part of a stadium, with appurtenant grounds, parking areas and other facilities” to be built by the City. Admin. Code § 18-118(a) (Add. 1). It does not limit the duration of such agreements, other than specifying that those longer than one year 8 For ease of reference, § 18-118 is reproduced in full in the Addendum that is being filed with this brief. (See Add. 1-2.) 11 require approval of the New York City Board of Estimate.9 Id. § 18-118(a), (d). The statute further provides that “[p]rior to or after the expiration or termination of the terms of duration” of any agreement entered into under § 18-118, the City may enter into “amended, new, additional or further” agreements with “the same or any other person or persons for any purpose or purposes referred to in” subdivision (b) of the statute. Id. § 18-118(a), (d). Section 18-118(b) contains two further subdivisions prescribing permissible purposes for the agreements to be entered into under § 18-118(a) and (d). The first states that the site may be used for any purpose that furnishes to or promotes among the people of New York City “recreation, entertainment, amusement, education, enlightenment, cultural development or betterment, and improvement of trade and commerce.” Id. § 18-118(b)(1). It provides that such purposes “includ[e] professional, amateur and 9 In 1990, the Board of Estimate was abolished and its principal powers transferred to the New York City Council. See N.Y.C. Charter ch. 2, §§ 21-49. 12 scholastic sports and athletic events, theatrical, musical or other entertainment presentations, and meetings, assemblages, conventions and exhibitions for any purpose, including meetings, assemblages, conventions and exhibitions held for business or trade purposes, and other events of civic, community and general public interest.” Id. The second permits the site to be used for “any business or commercial purpose which aids in the financing of the construction and operation of such stadium, grounds, parking areas and facilities.” Id. § 18-118(b)(2). The statute declares that “all of the purposes referred to in” § 18-118(b) are “public purposes” because they “are for the benefit of the people of the city and for the improvement of their health, welfare, recreation and prosperity, for the promotion of competitive sports for youth and the prevention of juvenile delinquency, and for the improvement of trade and commerce.” Id. § 18-118(b)(2). In accordance with the statute, Shea Stadium was built at Willets West in 1964, and stood there until 2009. (R.A. 683.) After Shea Stadium was demolished in 2009, Willets West became a 13 parking lot once again, now serving patrons of the new Citi Field stadium, which was built next to the site of Shea Stadium. (A. 142-143.) 4. The City’s proposal to remediate and develop Willets Point and Willets West Over the past few decades, several initiatives to clean up and develop Willets Point have foundered due to the severity of the pollution on the site and the lack of basic infrastructure such as sewers, storm drains, and paved roads. (A. 161-162; R.A. 6-8, 656- 658.) The City’s present plan, which results from a renewed effort that began more than fifteen years ago, recognizes the need for a comprehensive development plan for the entire area. (A. 162; R.A. 8, 656-658.) The City’s proposed development project aims to transform Willets Point and the surrounding area into a thriving new neighborhood, and to link the existing communities of Flushing and Corona, which are presently separated by blight. (R.A. 662.) In the first phase of the project, a private development concern— the Queens Development Group and various related entities 14 (“QDG”)—will remediate the environmental contamination in a significant portion of Willets Point in accordance with the state’s Brownfield Cleanup Program. (A. 178, 318 (FSEIS at 9-10–9-11, 10-2), 682-683, 1397 (map showing approximately twenty-three- acre “phase 1” project site).) QDG will also raise the level of the land to guard against flooding, install essential infrastructure such as drainage systems and roads, and develop business and recreational space at Willets West and a portion of Willets Point. (A. 178, 294-295, 318 (FSEIS at 9-10–9-11), 402; R.A. 624-625, 662-668.) The Willets Point component of the first phase of development will consist of a hotel and retail space along 126th Street, near Citi Field. (R.A. 662.) The Willets West component will consist of a retail and entertainment complex with over two hundred stores, a movie theater, restaurants, food courts, and other entertainment venues. (A. 154, 170, 178-179, 197-198; R.A. 665.) In the second phase of the project, the remaining portion of Willets Point will be developed into mixed-income housing, a school, and several acres of open public space. When the project is 15 completed, there will be a 230,000-square-foot public school; 150,000 square feet of space for community facilities;10 at least eight acres of open public space; 1.25 million square feet of retail space; 500,000 square feet of office space; 400,000 square feet of convention center space; 700 hotel rooms; and almost 6,000 new residential units (covering nearly six million square feet), of which one third will be affordable housing. (R.A. 668.) The City determined that dividing the project into phases would facilitate funding, and would help to lay the groundwork for a mixed-use community at Willets Point by turning the project area into a destination where people want to work, shop, and live. (A. 170, 180, 197-198.) This kind of phased development has been successfully employed across the nation: specifically, creation of a critical-mass commercial core, followed by the addition of residential and other community uses. (A. 154.) 10 Community facilities provide “educational, health, recreational, religious or other essential services for the community”: examples include libraries, houses of worship, and community centers. See N.Y.C. Dep’t of City Planning, Glossary of Planning Terms (URL in Authorities). 16 B. This Article 78 Proceeding In February 2014, petitioners—a State Senator and several taxpayers, not-for-profit organizations, and local businesses— brought this article 78 proceeding against QDG and the City of New York, seeking an injunction against their proposed development of Willets West. (A. 2-3, 20-59.) Noting that Willets West is formally designated as parkland, petitioners principally contended that the development would violate the public trust doctrine,11 which requires specific legislative authority before parkland can lawfully be used for long-term nonpark purposes. See, e.g., Matter of Glick v. Harvey, 25 N.Y.3d 1175, 1177 (2015); Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of N.Y., 95 N.Y.2d 623, 630 (2001). Petitioners asserted that the existing legislation governing permissible uses of Willets West—Admin. Code § 18-118—does not permit the uses proposed by the City and QDG. (A. 2-3, 45-48.) 11 Petitioners also raised certain other challenges to the process by which the City approved the development plan (A. 22, 48-56), which are not before this Court on appeal (see Br. for Municipal Respondents at 35-36), and as to which the State takes no position. 17 1. Supreme Court’s dismissal of the proceeding In August 2014, Supreme Court (Mendez, J.) dismissed petitioners’ article 78 proceeding, holding that Admin. Code § 18- 118 permits Willets West to be developed in the manner that the City and QDG have proposed.12 (R.A. 2114-2119.) The court observed that although the Legislature’s “initial intent for the parkland was Shea Stadium,” the statute’s language and legislative history establish “that the legislature took into consideration alternate uses of the property” and permitted the City “to enter into long term leases for other uses to benefit the public.” (R.A. 2117-2118.) As the court noted, the statute itself lists other public purposes for which the land could also be used, including the “‘improvement of trade or commerce.’” (R.A. 2118 (quoting Admin. Code § 18-118(b).) Supreme Court concluded that the City’s proposed development fit within § 18-118 because it “will serve the public 12 Supreme Court also rejected petitioners’ challenges to the process by which the City approved the development plan. (R.A. 2118-2119.) 18 purpose of improving trade or commerce” and “the public purpose of ultimately altering the blighted Willets Point into a mixed use community.” (R.A. 2118.) 2. The Appellate Division’s reversal In July 2015, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed in part, disagreeing with Supreme Court’s analysis of Admin. Code § 18-118(b).13 (See R.A. 2110-2211.) The First Department recognized that § 18-118(b)(1) sets forth an “unquestionably wide” list of public purposes for which the parkland concerned may be used (R.A. 2108-2109), and that on their face those purposes “are not necessarily related to a stadium” (R.A. 2107). But the court then inferred a limitation on that language from the statute’s “overriding context”: the building of Shea Stadium. (See R.A. 2106-2107.) Also “significant” to the court’s analysis was its view that the specific examples of 13 The Appellate Division did not disturb the portion of Supreme Court’s ruling that rejected petitioners’ other claims. (See R.A. 2110-2111.) 19 permitted purposes set forth in § 18-118(b)(1) “all naturally relate to uses of a large stadium.”14 (R.A. 2108; see R.A. 2107.) Based on the limitations the First Department read into the statute, the First Department declined to construe § 18-118 as “authorizing uses merely related to the improvement of trade and commerce.” (R.A. 2109.) Instead, the court interpreted the statute “as requiring any proposed use to be associated with the stadium and the necessary and natural appurtenances to it.” (R.A. 2109.) The court accordingly ordered judgment to be entered for petitioners on their public-trust-doctrine claims, and enjoined 14 Section 18-118(b)(1) provides that the parkland concerned may be used “for any purpose” that furnishes or promotes among the people of New York City recreation, entertainment, amusement, education, enlightenment, cultural development or betterment, and improvement of trade and commerce, including professional, amateur and scholastic sports and athletic events, theatrical, musical or other entertainment presentations, and meetings, assemblages, conventions and exhibitions for any purpose, including meetings, assemblages, conventions and exhibitions held for business or trade purposes, and other events of civic, community and general public interest. Admin. Code § 18-118(b)(1) (Add. 1) (emphasis added). 20 respondents from implementing the Willets West component of the development plan. (See R.A. 2110-2111.) The QDG respondents then moved for leave to appeal to this Court, which this Court granted. ARGUMENT A. The City’s Proposed Development Fits Within the Public Purposes That the Legislature Has Authorized for Willets West. Legislative approval is required before dedicated parkland can be used for nonpark purposes for an extended period of time. See, e.g., Union Square Park Cmty. Coal., Inc. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Parks & Recreation, 22 N.Y.3d 648, 654 (2014); Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of N.Y., 95 N.Y.2d 623, 630 (2001). At issue in this appeal is whether Admin. Code § 18-118—which sets forth permissible uses for an area of parkland in Flushing Meadow, Queens that includes Willets West—authorizes the City’s proposed development of Willets West. (R.A. 2102, 2116.) As the First Department recognized, § 18-118 allows Willets West to be used for an “unquestionably wide” range of public 21 purposes. (R.A. 2109.) And those purposes fairly encompass the City’s plan for Willets West. Parkland statutes are interpreted like any other type of legislation.15 When interpreting a statute, the Court’s task is “to effectuate the intent of the Legislature.” Matter of N.Y. County Lawyers’ Ass’n v. Bloomberg, 19 N.Y.3d 712, 721 (2012) (quotation marks omitted). In doing so, the Court “look[s] first to the statutory text, which is the clearest indicator of legislative intent.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The “[c]hief” precept of statutory interpretation is that “clear and unequivocal language is presumptively entitled to authoritative effect.” People v. Marquan M., 24 N.Y.3d 1, 9 (2014) (quotation marks omitted). In addition, the “statute must be construed as a whole and its various sections must be considered together and with reference to each other.” N.Y. County Lawyers’ Ass’n, 19 N.Y.3d at 721 (quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). 15 See, e.g., Bates v. Holbrook, 171 N.Y. 460, 467 (1902); Brooklyn Park Comm’rs v. Armstrong, 45 N.Y. 234, 243 (1871). 22 Applying these familiar principles, § 18-118 can and should be interpreted to permit Willets West to be used for any of the broad public purposes set forth in § 18-118(b)(1), which as the First Department acknowledged “are not necessarily related to a stadium” (R.A. 2107).16 Specifically, § 18-118 grants the City broad authority to enter into long-term leases or similar agreements with any person, for any period of time. First, the City may enter into agreements for use of the “whole or any part of a stadium, with appurtenant grounds, parking areas and other facilities” to be built by the City, “for any purpose or purposes referred to in subdivision (b).” Admin. Code § 18-118(a) (Add. 1).17 16 Although the language of § 18-118 is broad, it plainly puts certain uses of Willets West off limits. For example, § 18-118(b)(2) allows the site to be used “for any business or commercial purpose which aids in the financing” of the construction, operation, and improvement of the stadium, grounds, parking areas and facilities at Willets West—thereby ruling out its use for financing matters unrelated to that parcel. See Admin. Code § 18-118(b)(2) (Add. 1). Thus, for example, the statute would not allow the City to lease Willets West for luxury housing so that the proceeds can be used to finance recreational space elsewhere in the City. 17 For ease of reference, § 18-118 is reproduced in full in the Addendum that is being filed with this brief. (See Add. 1-2.) 23 In other words—as Supreme Court put it—the Legislature authorized the site to be used “initial[ly]” for the construction and operation of Shea Stadium. (See R.A. 2117-2118.) Second, in addition to agreements concerning stadium- focused undertakings, the City may enter into “amended, new, additional or further” agreements with “the same or any other person or persons for any purpose or purposes referred to in subdivision b” of § 18-118. Admin. Code § 18-118(a) (Add. 1). These successor agreements may extend to the entirety of the “grounds”—not just those “appurtenant” to a stadium. See id. § 18- 118(a), (b). The City’s proposed development of Willets West serves the purposes that § 18-118(b)(1) prescribes for such successor agreements. Section 18-118(b)(1) authorizes agreements for purposes that provide the people of New York City with “recreation, entertainment, amusement, education, enlightenment, cultural development or betterment, and improvement of trade and commerce.” Moreover, it provides that such permissible uses include “entertainment presentations” and 24 “assemblages” for any purpose, including “for business or trade purposes.” Admin. Code § 18-118(b)(1) (Add. 1). Here, consistent with those purposes, the City has proposed to develop Willets West into a retail and entertainment complex that will provide over two hundred stores, a movie theater, and other entertainment venues to the local community—including residents of a new mixed-income neighborhood at Willets Point (A. 154, 178-179). The First Department’s conclusion that § 18-118 does not authorize this proposed development was based on a narrow reading of the statute that the court principally derived from the statute’s title and “overriding context”—the building of a stadium in Flushing Meadow—as opposed to the statute’s text. (See R.A. 2106-2107.) But a statute’s title and context is not necessarily “determinative of its character.” See, e.g., Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v. Snow, 26 N.Y.3d 466, 474 & n.4 (2015). And indeed, the First Department’s interpretation renders superfluous significant portions of the statutory language, rather than giving those words their proper “distinct and separate 25 meaning.” Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95, 104 (2001) (quotation marks omitted); accord Matter of Westchester Joint Water Works v. Assessor of Rye, 27 N.Y.3d 566, 575 (2016). For example, if the second sentence of § 18-118(a) merely allowed the City to enter into agreements for the use of a stadium and its appurtenances, that sentence would add nothing beyond what is already in the first sentence of § 18-118(a), which permits the City to enter into such agreements “from time to time.”18 The same is true of the broad list of purposes set forth in § 18- 118(b)(1). If—as the First Department believed—§ 18-118(b)(1) authorizes only uses “associated with the stadium and the necessary and natural appurtenances to it” (R.A. 2109), there 18 The first sentence of § 18-118(a) provides that the City may “from time to time” enter into agreements authorizing third parties to use “the whole or any part of a stadium, with appurtenant grounds, parking areas and other facilities to be constructed by the city” at Willets West. Admin. Code § 18-118(a) (Add. 1). The second sentence of § 18-118(a) provides that “[p]rior to or after the expiration or termination” of the agreements referenced in the first sentence, the City may enter into agreements “for any purpose or purposes referred to in” § 18- 118(b). Id. 26 would be no need for § 18-118(b)(2), which permits agreements “for any business or commercial purpose which aids in the financing of the construction and operation of such stadium, grounds, parking areas and facilities.”19 To be sure, the First Department was correct in observing that § 18-118(b)(1)’s specific examples of permissible uses— including sports events and trade shows—could well describe activities taking place in a stadium. (R.A. 2108.) Yet by interpreting the inclusion of these specific examples as a limitation on the broad purposes permitted by the statute (R.A. 2107-2109), the First Department misapplied the doctrine of 19 Section 18-118(b)(1) provides that the “stadium, grounds, parking areas and other facilities” may be used “for any purpose” that furnishes or promotes among the people of New York City recreation, entertainment, amusement, education, enlightenment, cultural development or betterment, and improvement of trade and commerce, including professional, amateur and scholastic sports and athletic events, theatrical, musical or other entertainment presentations, and meetings, assemblages, conventions and exhibitions for any purpose, including meetings, assemblages, conventions and exhibitions held for business or trade purposes, and other events of civic, community and general public interest. Admin. Code § 18-118(b)(2) (Add. 1). 27 ejusdem generis. That doctrine provides that general words are limited by the specific words that precede them. See Statutes § 239(b), 1 McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N.Y. at 407-11 (1971). But when—as in § 18-118(b)(1)—a statute specifies that a list of general purposes “includ[es]” certain specific purposes, the most natural interpretation is that the Legislature has simply provided a nonexhaustive list of examples. See, e.g., Matter of Walker, 64 N.Y.2d 354, 358 (1985) (“[W]ords of a general bequest followed by enumerated articles are not limited to things similar to the specific items listed”). For all of these reasons, the First Department’s construction of § 18-118 is erroneous and should be set aside, and Supreme Court’s dismissal of this proceeding should be affirmed. 28 B. The Proposed Development Will Also Help to Advance the Statutory Public Purposes in Other Ways. As an integral part of the City’s comprehensive development plan for Willets Point, the development of Willets West will also serve the additional “public purpose of ultimately altering the blighted Willets Point into a mixed use community.” (See R.A. 2118 (Supreme Court opinion).) The new Willets Point neighborhood that the Willets West development will help to anchor will include a public school furnishing “education,” see Admin. Code § 18-118(b)(1) (Add. 1); 1.25 million square feet of new retail space and 500,000 square feet of new office space for the conduct of “trade and commerce,” see id.; 150,000 square feet for community facilities—for example, libraries, houses of worship, and community centers—promoting “education, enlightenment, cultural development or betterment,” see id.; 400,000 square feet of convention center space and 700 hotel rooms “for meetings, assemblages, conventions and exhibitions for any purpose, including meetings, assemblages, conventions and exhibitions held for business or trade purposes,” 29 see id; and eight acres of open public space for “recreation,” see id. —more than Willets West has ever provided in the decades since it was formally designated parkland. (See R.A. 668.) The City’s proposed development of Willets West will also promote the public “health” and “welfare” of local residents. Admin. Code § 18-118(b)(1) (Add. 1). The first phase of the City’s comprehensive development plan requires assessment and remediation of any contamination at Willets West (see A. 318 (FSEIS at 10-2); R.A. 683), as well as remediation of a significant portion of Willets Point (A. 178, 197-198, R.A. 662, 1397 (map showing approximately 23-acre “phase 1” project site)). QDG must pay for these initial project steps to the extent they cost more than the City’s capped contribution of $99.99 million; and QDG’s contribution to the initial project costs is expected to be at least $55 million. (A. 186, 535, 541.) No construction work can begin until the remediation work is completed, regardless of the cost. (A. 186.) To aid its cleanup efforts at Willets Point, QDG has enrolled the “phase 1” portion of the Willets Point site in the State’s Brownfields Cleanup Program (A. 153, 178, 535, 541), 30 participation in which requires a commitment to undertake remediation under DEC's oversight, see Environmental Conservation Law §§ 27-1409, 27-1411, 27-1415, 27-1419, 27-1421. In addition to requiring the remediation of the contamination in this area, the City’s development plan also calls for Willets West and Willets Point to be raised above the floodplain, to alleviate the serious and increasing risk of flooding. (A. 178, 318 (FSEIS at 9-1–9-11).) Before each stage of construction begins, QDG must confer with the Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination to develop a plan for additional flood defenses, such as coastal edge elevation measures and flood protection and storm surge barriers. These defenses will aim to protect the entire project site from the expected one-to-two-foot rise in sea level by mid-century, and to protect the residential areas from the even higher flood levels expected by the end of this century. (A. 381 (FSEIS at 9-11).) See also supra at 6-7. Halting the development of Willets West will disrupt the City’s pursuit of these public purposes. Moreover, it would jeopardize the City’s ability to secure remediation of the 31 environmental contamination at Willets Point and Willets West with limited expenditure of public funds. Without the planned remediation and re-grading, the flooding that is anticipated to occur in this area over the coming decades will create serious risks to public health, as contaminants from the soil and groundwater are dispersed into the surrounding environment, including the Flushing River and Flushing Bay. CONCLUSION The decision of the Appellate Division should be reversed~ the injunction vacated, and the petition dismissed. Dated: New York, NY October 21, 2016 BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Sohcitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General ANDREW RHYS DAVIES Assistant Solicitor General of Counsel By: Respectfully submitted, ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of .cfYew Yorh Attorney for Amicus Curiae Assistant Solicitor General 120 Broadway New York, NY 1 1 (212) 416-8018 Reproduced on Recycled Paper