DEP Environmental Protection Invoices, 1999-2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document NUV —.)O—LUVJU j'.YJl rrtu'' VQI a.t.unt_ • - -----.---- '-

non-recreationpurposes that were inconsistent to a private entity, or use of above-ground parkland for lirniting the public's use or enjoyment of parkland with the land's dedication to use as a park, thereby N.Y.Zd 34 (1964) (lease to private entity or a portion of it. see, e.g., Miller v. City of New York, 15 beyond Perks Commissioner's authority); to develop parkland for golf drilling range disallowed as 36S (2d Dep't 1989),aff'd on other Matter of Ellington Consrr. Corp. v. Zoning Bel., 152 A.D.2d private developer required approval of grounds, 77 N.Y.2d 114 (1990) (conveyance of parkland to Dep't 1984),affd on opinion below, 66 State legislature); Ackerman v. Steisel, 104 A.D.2d 940 (2d periods of 25 and 14 years at time of N.Y.2d 833 (1985) (supposed "temporary" allowance, far equipment above ground by Highway and litigation, by Parks Commissioner fcr storage of trucks and unlawful),Stephenson v. County of Sanitation Departments in Cunningham Park in Queens, declared park enjoined despite vague "speculation" Monroe, 43 A.D.2d 897(4" Dep't 1974) (sanitary landfill in slope); American Dock Co. v. City that the mountain of garbage would eventually be made into a ski 1940),aff'd without opinion, 261 A.D. 1063 (1" of New York, 174 Misc. 813 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. wharf area to private entity to operate a Dep't), aff'd without opinion, 286 N.Y. 658 (194)) (lease of

give the City power to unnecessary to consider whether any already existing enactments the provision of vital municipal services discontinue use of parkland for a water supply project, for even if the General City Law more generally, 6r for other purposes as determined by the City, acknowledges that state laws of general provisions are as restrictive as the AG argues. The AG public purposes and that such laws application may authorize discontinuance of parkland for particular project. See Grayson v. obviate a city's obtaining State legislative approval for each N.Y.2d 714 (1990), and Village Toivn of Xuntingion, 160 A.D.2d 835 (2d Dep't), lv. denied, 76 Dep't 1983),which Green Realty Corp. Y. Glen Cove Commwtity Dev. Agency, 95 A.D.2d 259 (2d projects, urban renewal upheld alienation of parkland property, for low-income housing or other The courts did so the basis without the specific approval of the State legislature for either use. on

purposes in Public Housing Law §123 of general authorizations for use of city property for such also Sierra Club v. Board ofEdtrc., 127 and General Municipal Law §503-a(4), respectively. See (construing provision of Buffalo City A.D.2d 1007 (41h Dep't), lv. denied, 70 N.Y.2d 612 (1987) allow city to use part of its parkland for a Charter, notwithstanding N.Y. Gen. City L. § 20(2), to public school or other non-park public purposes). 15

NYC-WTC 000137846