Opinion
2012-01-24
In re WILLIAMSBURG INDEPENDENT PEOPLE, INC., etc., Petitioner–Appellant, v. Robert B. TIERNEY, etc., Respondent–Respondent.
Camhi & Min, LLC, New York (Richard Min of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Edward F.X. Hart of counsel), for respondent.
Camhi & Min, LLC, New York (Richard Min of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Edward F.X. Hart of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 14, 2010, which granted respondent's cross motion to dismiss the petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to present to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission petitioner's request to landmark the entire site known as the Domino Sugar Refinery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly dismissed the petition seeking to compel respondent to present petitioner's Request For Evaluation (RFE), since “there is no statutory requirement that [respondent] adhere to a particular procedure in determining whether to consider a property for designation” ( Matter of Citizens Emergency Comm. to Preserve Preserv. v. Tierney, 70 A.D.3d 576, 577, 896 N.Y.S.2d 41 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 710, 910 N.Y.S.2d 36, 936 N.E.2d 917 [2010] ). Accordingly, the decision as to whether an RFE should be calendared is a discretionary action and thus mandamus to compel is not an available remedy. Moreover, contrary to petitioner's contention, the Landmarks Preservation Commission is not obligated under 63 RCNY 1–02 to hold a public hearing before declining to calendar a request for the property's designation as a landmark ( see Matter of Landmark West! v. Burden, 15 A.D.3d 308, 309, 790 N.Y.S.2d 107 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 713, 806 N.Y.S.2d 163, 840 N.E.2d 132 [2005] ).