Gunthrope-Hardee v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y.

[*1] Gunthrope-Hardee v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y. 2006 NY Slip Op 52339(U) [13 Misc 3d 1244(A)] Decided on October 3, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Wetzel, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 3, 2006
Supreme Court, New York County

Toni Gunthrope-Hardee, THOMAS M.H. KAPPNER, CAROLYN C. KENT, DAVID ROBINSON, MAUREEN MCDERMOTT, and MATTHEW P. DAVIES, Petitioners, For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules

against

Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, and TEACHERS COLLEGE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, Respondent.



107233/06

William A. Wetzel, J.

Petitioners bring this proceeding seeking an order that would annul a determination by the respondent to refinance the costs of a dormitory constructed by Teachers College, Columbia University. The petitioners reside in the area surrounding the building. The respondents cross-move to dismiss the petition as a matter of law.

The history of this matter begins in 2002 when the respondent agreed to finance the construction costs of the subject dormitory. As required by law, the respondent at that time conducted a SEQRA review and issued a Negative Declaration on February 24, 2003. Following that declaration, these same petitioners brought an Article 78 proceeding challenging that Negative Declaration. In the face of this action, the request for financing was withdrawn on July 23, 2003. The Article 78 proceeding was then dismissed by this Court as moot on September 22, 2003.

Teachers College went on to secure private financing and completed the project in accordance with the relevant zoning laws of the City of New York. The building was completed and occupied in 2004. Teachers College, one and a half years later, applied to the respondent to refinance the existing debt on the building. By resolution dated January 25, 2006, the respondent authorized the issuance up to $ 50 million in tax exempt bonds to refinance the debt. Respondent determined that this refinancing was exempt from SEQRA, pursuant to the applicable regulations, 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (23).

Petitioner now seeks to annul this resolution for refinancing or alternatively prevent such refinancing until there has been full compliance with SEQRA and also with Section 14.09 of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law.

While this court can understand the moral indignation of the petitioners at what is manifestly an end-run round the SEQRA requirement, their petition fails to state a cause of [*2]action and must be dismissed. The subject financing is clearly Type II (6NYCRR 617.3(f)) and as such is exempt from SEQRA review. The history with regard to this matter does not alter that simple fact.

It must be noted that the logic of exempting completed projects from SEQRA is obvious and consistent with the intent of SEQRA review, namely to determine beforehand the environmental impact of a project and require where appropriate that mitigating steps be taken.In this case, it is beyond dispute that the subject building was constructed in accordance with applicable law and granted a building permit by the City of New York and is in all respects eligible for refinancing by the respondent. While obviously the petitioners feel aggrieved, the forum to air their grievance is other than in a court of law which is limited to the application of statutory law.

For the reasons stated herein, the petition is denied and the cross-motion to dismiss is granted.

This constitutes the Decision and Judgment of this court.

Dated: October 3, 2006

New York, NY

___________________________

William A. Wetzel