Citizens Emergency Committee to Preserve Preservation v. Tierney

2008 WL 5027203 (2008)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Citizens Emergency Committee to Preserve Preservation v. Tierney

New York Supreme Court
2008 WL 5027203 (2008)

Facts

Citizens Emergency Committee to Preserve Preservation (CEPP) (plaintiff) was a citizen advocacy association made up of New York residents and historic-preservation experts dedicated to supporting the preservation of New York City’s cultural and architectural history. CEPP initiated a mandamus proceeding to compel the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) (defendant) to ensure a more fair and transparent process for landmark designation. CEPP’s petition included a prayer for general relief, including a demand that each request for evaluation (RFE) reach a final disposition in a timely matter, in public, and on the record after review by the entire LPC. CEPP also sought specific relief on behalf of six properties whose requests for evaluation had been pending for several years. The LPC opposed CEPP’s petition on the grounds that CEPP had no standing to bring suit, CEPP failed to state a cause of action because the LPC’s discretion over consideration for landmark designation was statutorily exclusive, and the LPC’s procedure for consideration was already fair. The procedure largely involved a five-person RFE committee that met every two to four weeks to review each RFE and forward those that met the threshold criteria for landmark designation on to each commissioner for comment. After comments were made, the RFE was returned to the chairperson of the committee, who then decided whether the RFE would be calendared for a public hearing to be heard by the whole commission. With respect to the six properties for which CEPP sought specific relief, the LPC conceded that five of the properties were meritorious. The trial court held that CEPP had standing and considered the petition.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Shafer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership