You are here: / / USE OF PIER 55 FOR REVENUE-GENERATING EVENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC...

USE OF PIER 55 FOR REVENUE-GENERATING EVENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE.

The First Department, in affirming the decision of the Hudson River Park Trust to enter into a lease of Pier 55 on the Hudson River, noted that there is no case law in New York applying the public trust doctrine to state, as opposed to municipal, parkland, and, even if the doctrine applied, the lease did not violate it:

There is no case law in New York applying the public trust doctrine to state, as opposed to municipal, parkland (see Matter of Niagara Preserv. Coalition, Inc. v New York Power Auth., 121 AD3d 1507, 1511 [4th Dept 2014] … ). We need not decide whether to follow the [4th] Department because even if the doctrine applies here, the project and lease do not violate it. The Hudson River Park Act expressly authorizes the use of the park for revenue-generating events, including performing arts events (see Uncons Laws §§ 1642[c], [e]; 1643[h][ii]; 1647[10][a]), and courts have upheld the charging of fees for park facilities, provided that overall public access is not unduly constrained … . Here, beyond the performances for which Pier 55 is designed, most of the park-like pier, most of the time, will be devoted to even more fundamental “public park uses, including passive and active public open space uses” (Uncons Laws § 1643[h][ii]). Additionally, the lease requires that 51% of the performances be free or low-cost. Matter of City Club of N.Y., Inc. v Hudson Riv. Park Trust, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05954, 1st Dept 9-8-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (USE OF PIER 55 FOR REVENUE-GENERATING EVENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE)/PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (USE OF PIER 55 ON THE HUDSON RIVER FOR REVENUE-GENERATING EVENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE)/HUDSON RIVER PARK TRUST (USE OF PIER 55 ON THE HUDSON RIVER FOR REVENUE-GENERATING EVENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE)/PIER 55 (USE OF PIER 55 ON THE HUDSON RIVER FOR REVENUE-GENERATING EVENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE)/PARKS (USE OF PIER 55 ON THE HUDSON RIVER FOR REVENUE-GENERATING EVENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE)/PIER 55 (USE OF PIER 55 ON THE HUDSON RIVER FOR REVENUE-GENERATING EVENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE)

You might also like
THE EX PARTE ORDER ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO SEIZE AND READ DEFENDANT’S NON-LEGAL MAIL DID NOT REQUIRE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROSECUTOR OR A MISTRIAL; THE PROSECUTOR’S DEMONSTRATION OF THE OPERATION OF THE MURDER WEAPON (A KNIFE) DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL; AND THE FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE COURT AND THE ATTORNEYS OF THE JURY NOTE REQUESTING THE EXAMINATION OF THE KNIFE WAS NOT AN O’RAMA VIOLATION AND DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
LANDOWNERS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY IN PUBLIC VESTIBULE OF THEIR BUILDING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT (FIRST DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE PRESSURED DEFENDANT INTO PROVIDING A DNA SAMPLE AFTER DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEEN RELIEVED, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT A CRITICAL STAGE, GUILTY PLEAS VACATED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED.
SUPREME COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT “AFFILIATES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE OF A RELEASE (FIRST DEPT).
7/8 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE FLOOR AND DOORWAY THRESHOLD WAS DEEMED TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE NYC BUILDING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES A HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL OF NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH, DID NOT APPLY TO THE HOME PURCHASED IN 1980 (FIRST DEPT).
TAKING THE APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE APPPELLANT JUVENILE WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED FROM A NONSECURE TO A SECURE FACILITY; THE JUVENILE’S MISBEHAVIOR WAS NOT THAT SERIOUS; ACS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD EXHAUSTED LESS SEVERE ALTERNATIVES (FIRST DEPT).
ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED, INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION IN COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE STATE HAS FAILED TO ADEQUATELY... PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY DESPITE ABSENCE OF BIOLOGICAL...