Society for Ethical Culture in the City of New York v. Spatt
New York Supreme Court
68 A.D.2d 112 (1979)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
The Society for Ethical Culture in the City of New York (society) (plaintiff) was a religious, educational, and charitable organization that owned an entire block front on Central Park West, which included two five-story buildings. One building was the society’s religious meeting house, which was built in 1910 to serve as the society’s headquarters and had continued to serve that function. The meeting house contained an auditorium and administrative offices and was constructed in the art nouveau architectural style. The second building housed the society’s school. In the late 1960s, the society had begun to explore the potential to develop its property, which had become desirable due to its proximity to Lincoln Center. The most attractive proposal was a plan for demolishing the two buildings, constructing high-rise buildings, and leasing the property to a developer. The society would then occupy the lower floors of a high-rise. It was estimated that the society could expect to receive $2 million to be applied to new school facilities on another site or toward the society’s other charitable purposes. The society had to abandon the plan in 1971 due to the depressed real estate market. The Landmark Preservation Commission (commission) (defendant) designated the meeting house as a landmark in 1974. The society then commenced an Article 78 proceeding to annul the landmark designation, alleging that the designation was unconstitutional. The trial court annulled the designation. The commission appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.