Parkview Associates v. City of New York

Parkview Associates (Parkview) (plaintiff) owned property on the corner of Park Avenue and 96th Street in the City of New York (defendant). A portion of the property was within a Special Park Improvement District (PID). The PID limited the height of new buildings in the district to 19 stories or 210 feet, depending on which was lower. The PID boundary ran uniformly 150-feet east of Park Avenue until a March 1983 amendment reduced the boundary for one section to 100 feet. The amendment did not affect Parkview’s property. Zoning Map 6b accompanied the amendment and depicted the amended boundary with a dotted line designated “100.” The “150” designation that was on earlier versions of the map was not included on the northern part of the boundary. Parkview interpreted the missing “150” designation on the map to mean that a 100-foot boundary controlled. Parkview submitted a building application proposing that the portion of the building set more than 100 feet back from Park Avenue was to rise 31 stories. Both Parkview and the superintendent of the Department of Buildings (DOB) had misinterpreted Map 6b as changing the northern boundary of the PID to 100 feet. The DOB approved the application and issued a building permit. The next year, Parkview had substantially constructed the building when the borough superintendent of the DOB issued a stop-work order for portions of the building over 19 stories, and the portion of the permit authorizing a height of 31 stories was revoked by the commissioner of buildings on grounds that it was invalid when issued. Parkview appealed the decision to the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), but its appeal was denied, and the commissioner’s determination was sustained. Parkview subsequently sued seeking to reinstate the full permit. Parkview argued the BSA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because the original permit was properly issued, Parkview’s rights under it had vested, and Parkview’s reliance on it caused substantial and irreparable harm requiring that the city be estopped from revoking it. Parkview also argued the partial revocation of the permit violated due process. The individual-assignment-system judge dismissed the petition. Parkview appealed, and the appellate-division court affirmed. Parkview again appealed.