‘SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
In the Matter of the Application of
SAVE GANSEVOORT, LLC,
Petitioner,
Index No.
For Fudgment Pursuant to Anictes 63 and 78 ofthe :
Civil Practice Law and Rules,
VERIFIED PETITION
against
CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION
COMMISSION, MEENAKSHI
SRINIVASAN, 60-74 GANSEVOORT STREET
LLC, GANSEVOORT STREET
VENTURES LLC, AURORA CAPITAL
ASSOCIATES, LLC and WILLIAM GOTTLIEB.
REALTY CO. LLC,
Respondents,
Petitioner Save Gansevoort, LLC (“Save Gansevoort” or Petitioner”), as and for its Article
78 Petition to annul, vacate, and reverse a determination of the New York City Landmarks
Preservation Commission, alleges and avers as follows:
NATURE OF CASE
1. By this Article 78 Proceeding, Save Gansevoort seeks an order, annulling, vacating,
and reversing a cectificate of appropriateness (he “Delermination”) issued by the New York City
Landmarks Preservation Commission (“LPC”) on June 7, 2016, Unless overtumed, the
Determination would, not only eviscerate the historically rare Gansevooet Market Historie District,
but worse, it would threaten the existence and vitality of every other designated historic district in
New York City2. By the Determination, the LPC granted permission to Gansevoort Street Ventures
LLC, 60-74 Gansevoort Street LLC, Aurora Capital Associates, LLC andlor William Gotlieb Reshty
Co, LLC (collestively, the Developers) to construct two tall, outoscale commercial buildings
‘onthe south side of Gansevoort Seat (between Greet
and Washington Streets) within the
Gansevoort Market Historie District (Historie Market District”). As shown below. the LPC
originally designated the Historie Market District in 2003 based upon its historic significance and
architectural alueasa market district, with ts one-to two-story market architecture along the south
side of Gansevoort Street as its signature feature, Indeed, the photograph on the cover ofthe PC's
Designation Repor for the Historie Market
et (‘Designation Report”) depicts the very same
cone-to-two story market buildings reflecting that they, in particular, are representative of the
buildings and architecture comprising the Historie Market District (Designation Report at 1, Ex. 1).
And two ofthese buildings ~ 60-68 Gansevoort Street and 70-74 Gansevoort Stet (collectively,
"Market Bi
ings”) are included among those thatthe LPC granted the Developers permission to
permanently alter and/or demolish.
3. If the Market Buildings were to be replaced by large commersal buildings hased
‘upon te “reasoning” provided by the LPC (set forth in 4, iff, the Historic Market Distriet would
‘cease to be @ market district and would instead be resigned tothe status of « neighborhood that
includes a hodgepodge of buildings of different scale design and purpose, Thus, the Determination,
were it to he stained om the grounds proffered hy the LPC, wonld constinite# rescission oF the
‘designation ofthe Historie Market District, and its re-designation into a nondescript commercial
dlistit.
4. The stated-basis by the LPC for its grant of permission to convert the MarketBuildings into large comercial buildings is that, approximately 50 years rior its development
454 meat matket disc, the Historie Market Disc included a residential neighborhood, with
several tenement buildings doting the skyline, Th ils Detenination, the LPC announced! that
‘because the Historie Maret Disc, at onetime, housed residents in tenement uidings, conversion
‘fhe Market Boling (1-2 tries each) into Iepe commercial towers weld he consistent with
the area's history. However, as shown below, the tenement buildings were referenced inthe
Designation Report merly to provide historical context the Historie Marko Distret—notio offer
a proposed altemative tothe tretscae ofthe Historie Market District. Indeed, according tothe
Designation Report the only significance ofthe earlier tenement buildings was the manner in whieh
some of them were converted into the Market Buildings (ather than demolished),
5. Upon information and belief, the LPC has never previously granted permission to
Ind within a designated Historie Distt based upon an historeally-insignifcan condition in
existence prior tothe poo to be preserved ("Period of Significance"). Indeod, atthe hearings
during whic the Devslper application (“Applicaton”) was considered one ofthe Commissioners
andy acknowledged thatthe LPC” considered ction would generally unprecedented, leaving
him to question repeatedly the scape of LPC’sjuisditon,autority and responsibility in such
raters!
6. Unless nnsle, vacated and revere the Determination would posearsk to every
store doit in Now Yor: iy, athe LPC, heneforth, woul be fee to emovethe very itr,
architectural, culture and aesthetic fabric of every designated neighborhood in favor of some prior
sot of pattems or values that lack the same (ot
this instance, any) historical, architectural, and
"Uhimatoy, shat Commissioner voted apaint the Application,
3cultural values that formed the basis forthe designation to preserve in he first instance
‘Comespondingly, developers throughout te City would be ie (and indeed, would be embodened)
to scour designation eports pertaining to her histori distil, searching for a period of ealcr
‘development
though historically, architecturally and culturally insgniicane, would pave the
_way foe demolition and reconstruction of histori buildings in fivor of newer souctres that generate
greater financial return. And then no histori disret would be sal.
7. Thispartioular Determination consttutesan especially egrgious departure from the
C's prior rulings and decisions. Not only does this appear tobe the first instance in which the
LPC granted permission to change an historic district toa condition that pre-dates the Period of
Significance, bt worse, the pre-preservaton condition atenement-style building — would noteven
be restored. lasted, it boars emphasis thatthe Developers here have been granted permission to
constuct commercial buildings ~ buildings which have no connection with the neighborhood. The
‘supposed reasoning” underlying th Determination, which imation, isthat the new commercial
towors would be similar to the size and scale of the tenement buildings that existe before the Period
of Significance. “Thus, the LPC granted the Developers hervin the right, not to restore the
historically, architecturally and cuturlly-insignifiant tenement buildings, but rather to erect
structures whieh may merely look ike them — another aspect of the Detemination whieh, upon
information and belief, would be unprecedented
$A reviow of the LPC's hearings, particule those at which the Commissioners