You are here: / / THE ZONING REGULATION WHICH REQUIRES PAYMENT TO AN “ARTS FUND”...
, ,

THE ZONING REGULATION WHICH REQUIRES PAYMENT TO AN “ARTS FUND” OF $100 PER SQUARE FOOT FOR CONVERSION OF “JOINT LIVING-WORK QUARTERS FOR ARTISTS” TO FULLY RESIDENTIAL USE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, found unconstitutional a NYC Zoning Regulation (ZR) which required artists who wish to convert their “joint living-work quarters for artists (JLWQA)” to residential use to pay $100 per square foot to an “Arts Fund.” The fund did not have a sufficient connection with the government’s land-use interest:

The ZR amendment passed by the City, in establishing the Special SoHo-NoHo Mixed Use District (SNX District), provides current JLWQA unit owners a pathway to convert uses but also requires them, if and when they seek conversion, to contribute “$100.00 per square foot of floor area to be converted” to the Arts Fund, with annual increases … . “[T]he payment of such non-refundable contribution shall be a precondition to filing for or issuing of any building permit allowing the conversion [of] a joint living-work quarters for artists to a residence” … .

The Arts Fund fee constitutes a permit condition for which the “two-part test modeled on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine” applies … . Thus, the permit condition “must have an ‘essential nexus’ to the government’s land-use interest,” which “ensures that the government is acting to further its stated purpose” … , and the condition “must have ‘rough proportionality’ to the development’s impact on the land-use interest” … .

In applying the two-part test, we find that petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the Arts Fund fee requirement constitutes a taking without just compensation (US Const Amend V; NY Const art I, § 7[a]). Matter of Coalition for Fairness in Soho & Noho, Inc. v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 06118, First Dept 12-5-24

Practice Point: Here a zoning regulation which required payment of a fee of $100 per square foot to an “Arts Fund” as a precondition for a building permit was deemed an unconstitutional taking.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAD PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IS A COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WAS A RECURRENT DANGEROUS CONDITION; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT AS A WITNESS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE, THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL, DESPITE LATE NOTIFICATION; THE DIRECTED VERDICT WAS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). 
The Purchasers’ Purported Retraction of an Earlier Repudiation of the Purchase Contract Was Not “Bona Fide” Because It Imposed a Condition for the Retraction Which Was Not Contemplated by the Purchase Contract—Sellers Entitled to Keep $365,000 Downpayment Based Upon Purchasers’ Failure to Close
Defense Counsel, Not Defendant, Has the Ultimate Authority to Determine Whether Defendant Should Testify Before the Grand Jury
INSURER’S ATTORNEY MUST BE DEPOSED TO DETERMINE HIS ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A FIRE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY AND THE DENIAL OF COVERAGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITION WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE ATTORNEY’S FILES ARE DISCOVERABLE BY THE PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).
Hearsay About Cause of Fall Included in Hospital Report Should Not Have Been Presented to the Jury
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE EXISTED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER SUCH THAT THE BROKER COULD BE LIABLE FOR THE FAILURE TO PROCURE ADEQUATE COVERAGE FOR A DEMOLITION PROJECT (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TIME-OF-THE-ESSENCE CLOSING DATE SET... PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO INTERPRET...