Decisions of Interest on Jay B. Itkowitz’s Cases While He Was Employed at the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City Of New York, Prior to Mr. Itkowitz’s Entry into Private Practice In 1982
Koch v. Dyson
85 A.D.2d 346, 448 N.Y.S.2d 698 (2d Dept. 1982)
New York City opposed the construction of a 700-megawatt, $1.2 billion coal-fired power plant which the State Power Authority of New York sought to construct on Staten Island. The City sought a reversal of an approval of the proposed plant by the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment on the grounds that the plant would be environmentally deleterious to the people of Staten Island, that the plant was not needed, and that the Power Authority failed to follow local laws and procedures. The Court voided the approval and remanded the case for further proceedings because the Power Authority failed to comply with local laws and regulations in the submission of its applications. Following the issuance of the decision, and before the completion of the additional proceedings, newly-elected Governor Mario Cuomo determined that the plant should not be built, and the Power Authority withdrew the application.
Community Board #3 v. State of New York
101 Misc.2d 189, 420 N.Y.S.2d 607 (Sup. Ct. Queens Cty. 1979)
A local Queens Community Board sought to enjoin the State and City from proceeding with the approval of a home for the mentally retarded in Jackson Heights. The Court granted a temporary injunction enjoining the State and City from proceeding with the home because the community had not been given fifteen days to suggest alternative sites for the home.
Community Board #3 v. State of New York
102 Misc.2d 501, 423 N.Y.S.2d 608 (Sup. Ct. Queens Cty. 1979)
In a successor decision, the Court vacated any operating license issued for the approval of the group home for the mentally retarded because the decision to approve the home was made prior to the expiration of a 15-day period in which the community was permitted to submit alternative sites to the appropriate agencies. The Court determined that the home could be established, however, if the appropriate agencies found the alternatives suggested by the community to be unacceptable.
Schnapp v. Lefkowitz
101 Misc.2d 1075, 422 N.Y.S.2d 798 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1979)
The Pet Owners Protective Association and individual dog owners challenged the constitutionality of the NYC “Pooper Scooper Law.” The pet owners attacked the “Pooper Scooper Law” on various grounds, including their claim that it would infringe on the religion of Orthodox Jews by requiring them to “pick up” on the Sabbath and would “create hardships for infirm and disabled dog owners.” The court rejected the challenges and upheld the constitutionality of the law, determining that “New Yorkers can once again hold their heads up high.”
Orth-O-Vision, Inc. v. City of New York
101 Misc.2d 987, 422 N.Y.S.2d 781 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1979)
A company which provided cable television service in Queens sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the City of New York (“the City”) from proceeding with a contract which awarded an exclusive cable television contract for the entire Borough of Queens to Knickerbocker Communications Corporation, a company later absorbed into Time Warner Communications. The lawsuit alleged the contract was void because, among other things, there were substantial differences between the initial franchise proposal and the contract granted by the City, and the City failed to provide proper notice to the local community boards for review pursuant to the City’s mandated Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. The Court granted a preliminary injunction against the City, which resulted ultimately in the City issuing a new request for proposals for contract(s) to provide cable television for the Borough of Queens.
De Milia v. McGuire
101 Misc.2d 281, 420 N.Y.S.2d 960 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1979)
The Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York (“PBA”) sought to enjoin the City of New York and the Police Department from promulgating more stringent requirements for police officers who were “chronically sick.” The PBA alleged that the City was required to “consult” with the PBA before implementing the more stringent requirements. The Court dismissed the PBA case and granted summary judgment to the City.