Opinion
April 19, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motion is granted, and the complaints are dismissed.
The plaintiffs in these six actions seek, inter alia, to recover damages based on the promulgation of new regulations by the defendant in each action, the City of New York, pertaining to the preservation of its watershed. These regulations were promulgated as part of a comprehensive settlement agreement the City reached with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State of New York, Putnam and Westchester Counties, communities situated in the City's watershed, and various environmental groups. Generally, the purpose of the agreement was to forestall the construction of a water filtration plant for the City's water supply by, among other things, actively engaging in a land acquisition program and imposing certain regulatory restrictions on development in the watershed area (see, 15 RCNY 18-14, 18-39 [a] [1]; see also, City of New York v. Mancini-Ciolo, Inc., 188 A.D.2d 633).
The plaintiffs are property owners, each of whom has alleged, inter alia, that the promulgation of the watershed regulations constitute a regulatory taking of their property without just compensation ( see, N Y Const, art I, §§ 7, 11). The plaintiffs also alleged causes of action under Public Health Law § 1105. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in each action, inter alia, on the ground that the actions were not ripe. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.
It is well settled that a claim for a regulatory taking is not ripe for judicial review until the extent of the administrative agency's enforcement of the regulation at issue is known ( see, de St. Aubin v. Flacke, 68 N.Y.2d 66, 77; Church of St. Paul St. Andrew v. Barwick, 67 N.Y.2d 511, 519-520; Spears v. Berle, 48 N.Y.2d 254, 263). As the United States Supreme Court has observed in a similar context, "`[a] court cannot determine whether a regulation has gone "too far" unless it knows how far the regulation goes'" ( Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725, 734, quoting MacDonald, Sommer Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 348).
None of the plaintiffs has alleged that any site plan application to develop their respective parcels has been denied by the City after being subject to complete review. The plaintiffs have not alleged that they sought and were denied a variance from the operation of the watershed regulations, as specifically provided, therein ( see, 15 RONY 18-21 [a] [3]). Indeed, the plaintiffs have consistently argued that the mere promulgation of the regulations is a ground for a judicial determination that a regulatory taking has occurred. We reject this argument and conclude that until such time as the City, through its pertinent administrative agency, makes a final determination as to a specific development plan with respect to a given parcel, any controversy as to whether there has been a regulatory taking is not ripe for judicial review ( see also, Matter of Gazza v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 89 N.Y.2d 603, 617-619; Marcantonio v. Rousso, 257 A.D.2d 650).
We similarly conclude that the alleged causes of action under Public Health Law § 1105 are not ripe for review until such final administrative determination is made ( see, Weingarten v. Town of Lewisboro, 77 N.Y.2d 926, 928; Matter of Parkview Assocs. v. City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274, 283; Matter of Wedinger v. Goldberger, 71 N.Y.2d 428, 439; Matter of Hospital Assn. v. Axelrod, 164 A.D.2d 518, 525; see also, Matter of Essex County v. Zagata, 91 N.Y.2d 447, 453-454; cf., Seawall Assocs. v. City of New York, 74 N.Y.2d 92; Rockland Power Light Co. v. City of New York, 289 N.Y. 45).
In light of this holding, we do not reach the other arguments raised by the parties, including the City's argument that the complaints do not state causes of action under Public Health Law § 1105.
Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.