You are on page 1of 23

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x In the Matter of the Application of ERIC W.

ALLISON, KEVIN J. FARRELLY, THEODORE GRUNEWALD, TED NARDIN, CITIZENS EMERGENCY COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE PRESERVATION, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 and Sections 3001 and 6301 of the Civil Practice Law & Rules -againstTHE NEW YORK CITY LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION, VORNADO REALTY TRUST, 510 FIFTH AVENUE LLC, 510 FIFTH EAT LLC, VORNADO REALTY, LP, and VNO 510 FIFTH LLC. Respondents/Defendants - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Petitioners, by their attorneys, allege as follows: ATURE OF CASE 1. This is a hybrid proceeding for a judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78 of VERIFIED PETITION/ COMPLAINT Index No. ____________

the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), as well as an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to CPLR 3001 and for injunctive relief pursuant to CPLR 6301, against the New York City Landmarks Commission (the LPC or Commission), Vornado Realty Trust (Vornado), 510 Fifth Avenue LLC, 510 Fifth Eat LLC, Vornado Realty, LP, and VNO 510 Fifth LLC. The action focuses on one of the

-1-

Citys great modernist landmarks the former Manufacturers Trust Company building at 510 Fifth Avenue (hereinafter, the MTC Building or Building which was designated as a New York City Landmark by the LPC in 1997, and the first and second floors of which were designated as an interior landmark by the Commission on February 15, 2011. However, within weeks after the interior designation, the LPC issued an approval called a certificate of appropriateness to Vornado, the owner of the MTC Building, to substantially gut and rebuild for retail purposes the very interior that the Commission had supposedly protected by its February 15 designation. This proceeding challenges that approval as arbitrary and capricious and as effectively rescinding the interior designation. In addition, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs assert that Vornado has gone beyond the authorizations granted in the certificate of appropriateness and even if the Commissions approval is upheld, Vornado must be enjoined and directed to restore the MTC Building to the extent that the demolition work has exceeded that permitted by the LPC. 2. Petitioners/Plaintiffs seek judgment and an order pursuant to CPLR Article

78 and CPLR Sections 3001 and 6301 for, inter alia, the following relief: a. Declaring the certificate of appropriateness granted by the LPC to Vornado illegal and null and void and setting the same aside; b. Declaring that in its work on the MTC Building, Vornado has exceeded the authority granted to it under the LPCs certificate of appropriateness; c. Enjoining Vornado from undertaking any further work at or in the MTC Building, except as necessary to restore the Building to its original condition. d. Directing Vornado to restore the MTC Building to its original condition or, -2-

at a minimum, to a condition that does not exceed the authorization granted by the certificate of appropriateness; e. Granting the Petitioners/Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against any further work at or in the MTC Building pending the final outcome of this case; f. g. Awarding Petitioners/Plaintiffs their fees and disbursements in this action; Directing the LPC immediately to produce all documents requested by Petitioners in FOIL requests; and h. Granting Petitioners/Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. PARTIES PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS 3. Petitioner/Plaintiff ERIC W. ALLISON, Ph.D., is the founder and academic

coordinator of the graduate Historic Preservation program and Adjunct Associate Professor in the School of Architecture at Pratt Institute, where he has taught historic preservation and planning since 1996. His research interests include the place of historic preservation in the creation and maintenance of livable cities and in emerging concepts of heritage preservation. Dr. Allison is one of the founders and a member of the Steering Committee of the Citizens Emergency Committee to Preserve Preservation (CECPP), the organizational Petitioner/Plaintiff in this proceeding. For ten years, Dr. Allison was the president of the Historic District Council, the Citys leading advocacy group dedicated to historic preservation. He is currently Chair of the National Council for Preservation Education, the body that sets standards for and certifies preservation organizations. He is -3-

the author of a number of books, including Historic Preservation and the Livable City, published in December 2010 by John Wiley & Sons. 4. Dr. Allison is also a member and regular user of the Columbia University

Club of New York, which is located in the Princeton Club on West 43rd Street almost directly across from the MTC Building. As such, he has passed and continues to pass the Building many times on a regular basis. Both as an individual, as a person whose career is historic preservation and as a member of CECPP, he has had a special interest in and appreciation of the MTC Building as a result of its architecture and transparency; and this interest has been reinforced by his geographical connection to the immediate neighborhood through the Princeton Club, and the many times he has passed the Building and stopped before it to admire its unique features. The Building has become an important element in Dr. Allisons environment and one that he cherishes on a level different from that of the general public. 5. Dr. Allison is directly and adversely affected by the illegal actions herein

complained of in that such illegal actions (a) are resulting in the destruction of critical elements of the MTC Building and desecrating the interior features that resulted in its designation as an interior landmark, thereby denying Dr. Allison the special enjoyment that the Building has provided him and destroying essential features of the Building that are integral to his use and enjoyment thereof, (b) will deny him the opportunity to use and appreciate the Building in its original landmarked condition, and (c) will otherwise impact him by putting at risk the unique architecture of a building that constitutes an integral part of the environment that he frequents.

-4-

6.

Petitioner/Plaintiff KEVIN J. FARRELLY is an attorney practicing in New

York City. He is a member of the Columbia University Club of New York which is housed at the Princeton Club on West 43rd Street substantially opposite the 43rd Street faade of the MTC Building. Mr. Farrelly uses the Clubs facilities several times a week on the average and regularly passes by the Manufacturers Trust Company building on his way between his office on Madison Avenue and the Club. Mr. Farrelly has often stopped to admire the transparent open quality of the Building, particularly at night when lights are on within and the interior seems conspicuously open to passersby, and it has come to constitute a significant element of the environment he frequents. Mr. Farrelly is directly and adversely affected by the illegal actions herein complained of in that such illegal actions (a) are resulting in the destruction of critical elements of the MTC Building and desecrating the interior features that resulted in its designation as an interior landmark, thereby denying him the special enjoyment that the Building has provided him and destroying essential features of the Building that are integral to his use and enjoyment thereof, (b) will deny him the opportunity to appreciate the Building in its original landmarked condition, and (c) will otherwise impact him by putting at risk the unique architecture of a building that constitutes an integral part of the environment that he frequents on a regular basis. 7. Petitioner/Plaintiff THEODORE GRUNEWALD is the founder and

principal of the Coalition to Save MHT, an organization established in 2010 to advocate for the designation of the first and second floors of the MTC Building as interior landmarks. Professionally, he is an archivist and curator of art and design, employed for the past 13 years as chief archivist for a major fine arts publishing and media corporation -5-

in Manhattan. Mr. Grunewald was trained in architecture at Parsons School of Design, and worked for five years at the firm of Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates in New York. Along the way, he became a landmarks preservation advocate, and established The Urban Archaeologist, a research consulting firm in architectural history. Mr. Grunewald and his Coalition played a leading role in advocating for designation of the interior. Since designation, he has actively campaigned to ensure that the designation is properly enforced. 8. As a person whose career and interests are closely associated with historic

preservation, Mr. Grunewald has had a special interest in and appreciation of the MTC Building and has devoted a substantial amount of his time to the designation of its interior and enforcement of its status under the Landmarks Preservation Law. The Building has become an important element in Mr. Grunewalds environment and one that he cherishes on a level different from that of the general public. Mr. Grunewald is directly and adversely affected by the illegal actions herein complained of in that such illegal actions (a) are resulting in the destruction of critical elements of the MTC Building and desecrating the interior features that resulted in its designation as an interior landmark, thereby denying Mr. Grunewald the special enjoyment that the Building has provided him, (b) will deny him the opportunity to use and appreciate the Building in its original landmarked condition, and (c) will otherwise impact him by putting at risk the unique architecture of a building that he fervently cares for. 9. Petitioner/Plaintiff TED NARDIN, is chief executive officer of Springer

Publishing Company, LLC, which has its offices at 11 West 42nd Street, Manhattan. That building runs through to 43rd Street and the entrance on 43rd Street is separated from the -6-

MCT Building by only one intervening building. When entering and leaving his own office building, Mr. Nardin frequently passes by the MTC Building. In addition, he commonly walks around the block on which both buildings are located at lunch time and passes by the MTC Building. His company has chosen to be located in the 11 West 42nd Street building because of its interesting architecture and because of the outstanding architecture of other buildings in the immediate area, including the Public Library at 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue and the MTC Building. 10. Petitioner/Plaintiff CITIZENS EMERGENCY COMMITTEE TO

PRESERVE PRESERVATION (CECPP or the Committee) is a voluntary unincorporated public education and citizens advocacy association formed in 2006 and dedicated to supporting the purposes and objectives of the Landmarks Law and the LPC, including the designation of worthy unprotected structures and the preservation of the essential elements of existing landmarks and landmark districts. The Committees mailing address is: Neighborhood Preservation Center, 232 East 11th Street, New York, NY 10003. CECPP is composed of individual citizens residing or working in New York City who have, by reason of their professions, their activities in the field of historic preservation and their other activities, exhibited a special interest in the preservation of eligible and designated landmark properties within the Citys five boroughs for aesthetic, economic and recreational grounds. It has more than 100 members; of these, its Steering Committee includes Anthony Wood, the author of Preserving New York, Whitney North Seymour, Jr., an attorney and long-time preservation activist, Jeffrey Kroessler, historian and librarian at John Jay College, Kate Wood, Executive Director of Landmark West!, and Eric Allison, whose background and credentials are set forth above. Over recent years, CECPP has -7-

actively sought to persuade the LPC to conform its actions to the requirements of the Landmarks Law and has brought or joined in lawsuits to enforce the law, including actions focused on individual properties. Through a number of its members, CECPP opposed Vornados proposal to the LPC to remodel the MTC Building; and it continues to oppose the desecration of the Building which is now underway. 11. CECPP and its members of have been actually injured and prejudiced by

the illegal actions herein complained of, in a manner different from the general public, in that such illegal actions (a) threaten the destruction of one of the important historic resources of New York City the interior of the MTC Building, which has been designated a New York City interior landmark to the detriment of its members and the mission it has pursued for the last five years and in derogation of its and its members active interest in preserving the interior of the Building, (b) result in the loss of City revenues generated by tourism and interest in historic properties, and (c) and deprive its members and others of their constitutional right of access to government for the redress of grievances, in violation of the Landmark Law, the Constitution of the State of New York and the Federal Constitution. 10. In particular, injury and prejudice to at least one of CECPPs members, Eric

Allison, have resulted or will result from the actual and threatened destruction of significant parts of the interior of the MHT Building, in the manner described in paragraphs 4 and 5 above. CECPP has standing to sue in that one or more of its members has standing to sue, the interests it advances here are sufficiently germane to its purpose so as to make it an appropriate representative of those interests, and the participation of its individual members is not required to assert this claim or afford complete relief. Among -8-

the Committees individual members directly and adversely affected by the illegal actions herein complained of is ERIC ALLISON, whose description is provided above. RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 11. Respondent NEW YORK CITY LANDMARKS PRESERVATION

COMMISSION (the LPC or Commission) is an agency within the government of the City of New York, having the responsibility for, among other things, designating landmarks (including interior landmarks) and historic districts, authorizing (or rejecting) alterations to and demolition of such landmarks and structures within historic districts, and, in general, implementing and enforcing the New York City Landmarks Law [Landmarks Preservation and Historic Districts Law, Title 25, Ch 3, 25-301 to 25-322 of the Administrative Code of the City of ew York.] pursuant to which the LPC was created and by which it is bound. In the instant case, the LPC was responsible for designating the interior of the MTC Building as a landmark and thereafter passing judgment on Vornados application for a certificate of appropriateness to alter the interior. The principal office of the LPC is in the Municipal Building at 1 Centre Street, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10007. 12. Respondent/Defendant VORNADO REALTY TRUST is a Maryland real

estate investment trust with principal offices located at 888 Seventh Avenue, New York and in Paramus, New Jersey. Vornado, directly or indirectly, is the owner of the MTC Building and was the applicant for and recipient of the Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the LPC to alter the landmarked interior of that Building. 13. On information and belief, Respondents/Defendants 510 FIFTH AVENUE

LLC, 510 FIFTH EAT LLC, VORNADO REALTY, LP, and VNO 510 FIFTH LLC are -9-

affiliates of VORNADO REALTY TRUST, directly or indirectly, wholly or partially, owned by VORNADO REALTY TRUST, and controlled by VORNADO REALTY TRUST. On information and belief, one or more of said Respondents/Defendants holds title to the Building and the land on which it is located, or owns an equity interest therein. Unless the context otherwise indicates, Vornado refers to VORNADO REALTY TRUST and its affiliates identified herein. FACTUAL BACKGROU D 14. The MTC Building was designed by the respected commercial architectural

firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (often publicly referred to as SOM), with Gordon Bunshaft as partner in charge and chief designer. It was completed in 1954, soon after the construction of Lever House, the firms first outstanding venture into the International Style and one that established the firms place at the forefront of modernist design. The MTC Building was immediately recognized as an exceptionally fine modernist design, attentive to detail and materials, airy, transparent, and inviting. Images of the Building are submitted as Exhibit A to this Petition. 15. The architects took fundamental characteristics of the International Style

the glass curtain wall held together with a metal grid, the exposed supporting structure, the cantilevered slab floors, rectilinearity, severity, minimalism, avoidance of applied decoration and embellished the basic rules to create an outstanding, even unique example of its genre. Among other things, they added sculptural depth with a cantilevered second floor serving to unite first and second stories as a single enormous volume, and with deep metal mullions between glass plates. They took the idea of the glass box epitomized by Mies van der Rohes Farnsworth House in Plano, Illinois, and Philip Johnsons glass house - 10 -

in New Canaan, Connecticut, greatly enlarged them and removed them from a pastoral country setting to the busiest urban environment. The merger of indoors and outdoors so sought in the rural environment was achieved on a far grander scale in the middle of Manhattan. As architectural critic Ada Louis Huxtable expressed the Buildings significance: This small, five-story structure is a one-off gem created for a client willing to embrace what was then a radical design . . . . It also represents the moment in which one of the most cherished ideals of the modern movement, the transparent, all-glass building, was realized. Earlier glass-walled buildings, like Lever House, were opaque, reflecting the sky and surrounding structures in their sleek, vitreous facades. With the Manufacturers Hanover Trust building, we have a structure where exterior and interior were conceived as one thing, unified and inseparable, to be seen and understood as a continuous visual, spatial and aesthetic experience. It was an achievement made possible by modernist architects use of new materials and technologies. (Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2010). 16. The architecture is also iconic in providing sophisticated and subtle symbols

to guide the viewers eye, perception and steps. As identified in the Exterior Designation Report issued in 1997 (submitted as Exhibit B to the Petition), the polished steel vault door almost directly bordering Fifth Avenue, appended to a powerful black granite wall enclosing the safe deposit area, announces in modern idiom what traditional stone masonry fortress-like bank architecture formerly did: this is an institution you can trust to safeguard your money. The escalators seemed to join first and second floors, mooring the second (a mezzanine without apparent support) from floating away. They pointed out the location of the buildings entrance on 43rd Street, allowing the architects to use the entire faade as

- 11 -

pure sculpture. And, by giving the vault door and escalators a muscular industrial machined look, they turned these functional elements into subliminal signals that this was not only a bank, but a Manufacturers bank. 17. From its opening, the MTC Building was recognized as a gem based on,

among other things, on the integral connection of exterior and interior. With the adoption of the Citys Landmarks Preservation Law, the idea of preserving both developed more or less together. Hearings on interior designation began in 1990 (see the LPC Interior Designation Report submitted with this Petition as Exhibit C at pg. 10). However, the initial designation of the Building in October 1997 was for the exterior only. Designation of the interior banking spaces the first and second floors was finally achieved in February 2011. 18. In the exterior designation report in 1997, the Commission recognized the

Building as an important monument in the history of International Style architecture in New York City. (Exterior Designation Report at pg. 12). Among the Buildings important qualities, the Commission particularly noted that it is one of the first buildings in the United States to introduce International Style modernism to bank design, and praised its spare elegance and refinement of its design. (Id.) The Report paid particular attention to the architects achievement of a first for a large building: creating a look so open and transparent that the material normally distinguishing inside from outside became invisible. Elimination of glare and reflection made glass an invisible material inviting the public passing by to look in and see the inner workings of the bank. In large part this was achieved by the use of luminescent ceilings with intense but diffused light

- 12 -

that suppressed shadows and glare. By raising the candle power inside to exceed the level outside, the glass was visually dissolved. (Exterior Designation Report at pp. 1, 4, 6, 12) 19. On February 15, 2011, the Commission designated substantially all of the

first and second floors the public banking floors as an interior landmark. Only the interior of the safe deposit vault and a narrow strip on the west end housing elevators were excepted (see Exhibit C hereto, the Interior Designation Report, at pg. 17). The designated areas are not only the portions which the public is invited to enter physically, but also those most visible to the public from the outside. In effect, the designation of the interior completes the protection of the MTC Buildings most exceptional feature, its transparency. 20. The Interior Designation Report particularly noted the following aspects of

the interior design as significant elements justifying the landmark designation: openness and transparency; the vault door; the black granite wall holding the vault door and enclosing the vault area; the luminescent ceiling with its strong but unfocussed (and, therefore, minimally shadow casting) light; the strong diagonal line of the escalators which, while seeming to float, visually connect the two banking floors; the white marble clad columns; the absence of an entrance on Fifth Avenue; the thin floor slabs, adding to the airiness of the structure; and the appearance that the mezzanine floats, creating the impression that both banking levels occupy a single, monumental space. 21. Vornado, which had recently acquired the MTC Building, supported the

interior designation. However, less than a month later, it returned to the LPC seeking a certificate of appropriateness to modify the interior. And these were no modest changes. Among other things, Vornado proposed walling apart the openness of the first floor with a partition running east-west through approximately the middle of the floor, thereby also - 13 -

compromising the apparently unsupported floating appearance of the cantilevered mezzanine; removing the black granite wall around the safe deposit box so that the remaining vault door hangs, like a stage prop rather than an icon, on a spur of wall enclosing nothing; retaining the luminescent ceiling but with no requirement for maintenance of the high light level essential to preserving the transparency and total openness of the structure; breaking up the continuity of the first floor Fifth Avenue faade with two entrances; and repositioning the escalators so that they no longer present a floating diagonal line along Fifth Avenue. 22. On April 19, 2011, the LPC granted the certificate of appropriateness

approving the proposed changes.1 A copy of that certificate is submitted as Exhibit D to the Petition. 23. On June 1, 2011, relying on the certificate of appropriateness, the New

York City Department of Buildings issued permits for the approved work. Interior demolition began shortly after that and is continuing. 24. In the work it has undertaken to date, Vornado has gone beyond the

authorization given to it by the LPC, resulting in more damage to and demolition of the interior of the MTC Building than the certificate of appropriateness contemplated in allowing demolition only of select portions of the mezzanines floor plate. An image of the extensively gutted interior is submitted as Exhibit E to the Petition. 25. The Petitioners/Plaintiffs ask this Court to halt further work pending the

resolution of the case on the merits. Otherwise, the interior of the MHT Building may well

Two Commissioners who had indicated opposition to the Vornado plans were unable to attend the meeting as it was held on the first full day of Passover. The MTC Building was added to the agenda of the meeting only on the Friday before, so little notice was available.

- 14 -

be totally destroyed, and improper remodeling pursued, before ultimate relief can be provided. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIO (For a judgment pursuant to Article 78 setting aside the Certificate of Appropriateness) 26. Petitioners repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 25 of this Petition as if fully set forth herein. 27. The Landmarks Preservation Law was enacted in 1965 to protect and

perpetuate the Citys cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history by designating buildings or neighborhoods that have a special character or a special historical or aesthetic interest or value as individual landmarks or historic districts. Landmarks Law, 25-301. Finding that many such buildings and neighborhoods and many improvements representing the finest architectural products of distinct periods in the history of the city have been uprooted, notwithstanding the feasibility of preserving and continuing [their] use, the Board of Estimate declared that as a matter of public policy, the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements . . . of special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the people. Landmarks Law, 25-301(a) (emphasis added). 28. The LPC was created to administer the Landmarks Law under the New

York City Charter.

- 15 -

29.

Among the most important duties of the Commission is the designation of

individual landmarks, including interior landmarks, as it is only such individual landmarks and the structures within historic districts that are protected by the Landmarks Law. 30. The designation of a landmark, including an interior landmark, imposes

significant restrictions and obligations on building owners. In particular, Section 25-305 of the Landmarks Law prohibits any alteration or demolition of any individual landmark without LPC approval. In this case, such approval was sought under Section 25-307 of the Landmarks Law, which allows to Commission to grant a certificate of appropriateness if the proposed work would be appropriate for and consistent with the effectuation of the purposes of the Landmarks Law. As heretofore alleged, the LPC granted such a certificate of appropriateness to Vornado to substantially alter and demolish parts of the landmarked interior of the MTC Building on the asserted basis that the work met this test. 31. As heretofore alleged, in 1997 the LPC designated the exterior of the MTC

Building based on, among other qualities, its International Style modernism, its spare elegance and refinement of its design and, in particular, the creation [of] a look so open and transparent that the material normally distinguishing inside from outside became invisible. In February 2011, the LPC designated the first two floors of the MHT Building as an interior landmark, again citing the openness and transparency of the structure, which rendered the interior completely visible from the outside, as critical features, along with such other elements at the black granite wall holding the vault door, the luminescent ceiling, the escalators and the absence of any Fifth Avenue entrance. 32. In granting Vornado the certificate of appropriateness to alter and demolish

parts of the MHT Building, the LPC disregarded its own designations reports when it, - 16 -

among other things, authorized (a) the construction of a new wall cutting the ground floor interior space in two and destroying the openness of the Building, (b) the removal of the black granite wall holding the vault (as well as the vault itself), (c) the puncturing of the luminescent ceiling with light fixtures are other paraphernalia (d) the relocation and repositioning of the escalators so they will no longer appear to float, and (e) the cutting of two new retail entrances into the Fifth Avenue side of the Building. 33. The LPCs action in issuing the Certificate of Appropriateness effectively

de-designated the interior landmark status of the MTC Building, contrary to the law and to lawful procedure. 34. The LPCs action in issuing the Certificate of Appropriateness was 180

degrees at odds with its decision to designate the first and second floors of the MTC Building as an interior New York City landmark, but the LPC gave no reason or other explanation for either (a) its authorization to demolish and significantly alter protected architectural features, or (b) its departure from its prior designation decision. 35. The LPCs action in issuing the Certificate of Appropriateness was

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and in violation of law and lawful procedure in that, among other things, it (a) represented a reversal of the agencys position regarding the landmark value of the interior of the MTC Building without providing any reasons or other explanation for the change, contrary to the established law of the State, (b) constituted in effect a de-designation of the interior landmark without following the procedures for dedesignation set out in the Landmarks Law, (c) was based on considerations, including economic factors, that the LPC was not authorized to take into account under the

- 17 -

Landmarks Law, and (d) violated the essential purposes of the Landmark Law to protect historic resources of high importance and quality. 36. By reason of the foregoing, the LPCs action in issuing the Certificate of

Appropriate was illegal and should be set aside and declared null and void by this Court. The Vornado Defendants should be enjoined to restore the Building to its previous condition. 37. By reason of the foregoing, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs are faced with

immediate and irreparable injury, in that the landmarked interior of the MTC Building is being savaged and such action will continue without the intervention of the Court. 38. The Petitioners/Plaintiff have exhausted all available administrative

remedies and have no adequate remedy at law.

SECO D CAUSE OF ACTIO (Plenary Action against Vornado Defendants) 39. Petitioners repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 38 of this Petition as if fully set forth herein. 40. The alterations and demolition undertaken so far by the Vornado

Defendants have exceeded the work authorized by the LPC in, among others not now known to Plaintiffs, the following respect: Although the Certificate of Appropriateness allows only demolition of select portions of the floor plate of the mezzanine (also known as the second floor), the Vornado Defendants have demolished much of the mezzanine. 41. Performing alterations and demolition not explicitly authorized by the LPC

in the Certificate of Appropriateness is illegal, and any further work by Vornado will not - 18 -

only extend and expand such illegality but also threatens irreparable damage to the designated interior of the MTC Building. 42. Absent the intervention of this Court, the illegal work is certain to continue,

and the damage to the interior of the MTC Building is certain to be exacerbated. The Court should, consequently, enjoin any further work by the Vornado Defendants. 43. To the extent that the work undertaken by the Vornado Defendants has

exceeded the authorization given by the LPC, this Court should direct Vornado to restore any parts of the MTC Building that were altered or destroyed by the illegal work.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIO (Against City Defendants) 44. Petitioners repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 43 of this Petition as if fully set forth herein. 45. On June 23, 2011, counsel for CECPP mailed a request to the LPC pursuant

to the Freedom of Information Law (POL 84 ff.) for certain documents necessary and appropriate to investigation of the grounds for this proceeding and for its prosecution. A copy thereof is annexed hereto as part of Exhibit F. A copy was e-mailed the following day to the LPCs FOIL officer. 46. A person in the office of the FOIL officer responded by letter dated June 29

to the effect that LPC would respond within approximately four weeks, but may require more time. A copy of this response is annexed hereto as part of Exhibit G. 47. Counsel subsequently informally requested access to drawings and other

documents underlying (and referred to in) the Certificate of Appropriateness and was told that the sole means of obtaining such access was through a request pursuant to FOIL. - 19 -

Counsel thereupon made a second FOIL request, a copy of which is annexed hereto as part of Exhibit F. There has been no response to that request to date other than an e-mailed acknowledgement of receipt stating that the request would be processed together with the previous request. A copy of that e-mail is annexed hereto as part of Exhibit G. 48. Petitioners/Plaintiffs are severely hampered in their prosecution of this

proceeding by the inability to obtain, on a timely basis, public documents necessary and material to the prosecution as requested in the two FOIL applications. 49. 50. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Petitioners/Plaintiffs, therefore, request that the Court direct immediate

production of the requested documents. CO CLUSIO WHEREFORE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs request a judgment and order: a. Declaring the certificate of appropriateness granted by the LPC to Vornado

illegal and null and void and setting the same aside; b. Declaring that in its work on the MTC Building, Vornado has exceeded the

authority granted to it under the LPCs certificate of appropriateness; c. Enjoining Vornado from undertaking any further work at or in the MTC

Building, except as necessary to restore the Building to its original condition. d. Directing Vornado to restore the MTC Building to its original condition or,

at a minimum, to a condition that does not exceed the authorization granted by the certificate of appropriateness; e. Granting the Petitioners/Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against any

further work at or in the MTC Building pending the final outcome of this case; - 20 -

f.

Directing immediate production of documents requested by

Petitioners/Plaintiffs in their FOIL requests; g. and h. Granting Petitioners/Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court Awarding Petitioners/Plaintiffs their fees and disbursements in this action;

deems just and proper. Dated: New York, New York July 8, 2011 _________________________________ Michael S. Gruen Michael S. Gruen Law Offices 249 West 34th St, Ste 401 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 643-7050 Albert K. Butzel Albert K. Butzel Law Offices 249 West 34th St, Ste 401 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 643-7050 Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs

- 21 -

This page is intentionally left blank

- 22 -

VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) THEODORE GRUNEWALD, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am one of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs in this proceeding and am authorized

to make this verification on behalf of the other petitioners herein. 2. I have read the foregoing Petition and, upon information and belief, I

believe it to be true and accurate. 3. The basis of my information and belief is my personal knowledge, materials submitted to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, other records of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, research that I have personally undertaken and public releases and materials in my files and the files of our attorney.

_______________________________ Theodore Grunewald Sworn to before me this ___ day of July, 2011

Notary Public

- 23 -