Lawmakers, Neighborhood Groups Sue To Overturn City Of Yes

The borough president of Staten Island, alongside a group of conservative city and state lawmakers, civic associations and homeowners, have sued New York City and Mayor Eric Adams, seeking to annul the landmark City of Yes zoning reform.

The lawmakers and neighborhood groups claim the city didn’t follow state or city-level environmental review requirements when it passed the citywide zoning amendments last year, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Richmond County Supreme Court, the state court branch in Staten Island.

“Unexamined population growth and increased density resulted in potential and significant negative environmental impacts left unreviewed, unmitigated and undisclosed,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in the filing.

The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity legislation was signed into law in December, raising allowable density in wide swaths of the city, reducing parking minimums and allowing more office-to-residential conversions. The new provisions, along with a $5B funding package, are expected to yield 80,000 new housing units over the next 15 years.

The groups suing to overturn City of Yes largely hail from low-density neighborhoods in Staten Island, eastern Queens, southern Brooklyn and the Bronx. Neighborhood groups from Elmhurst, Kew Gardens, Dyker Heights, Mill Island, Van Nest and Morris Park are among the plaintiffs and have been organizing and fundraising for the legal challenge for at least a few weeks.

Also listed as plaintiffs are elected officials who represent those regions, including Queens Council Members Joann Ariola, Robert Holden and Vickie Paladino, whose opposition to the proposal last year went viral. Seven members of the New York City Council are plaintiffs in the suit, plus Staten Island Assemblyman Sam Pirozzolo, State Sen. Stephen Chan and Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella. Most of the plaintiffs are Republicans, although Holden is a Democrat.

A City Hall spokesperson called City of Yes “the most pro-housing zoning proposal in New York City history,” in a statement to Bisnow.

“When it comes to housing, there will always be those who say, ‘Not in my backyard,’ but we stand by the city's thorough and transparent review process and will address any lawsuit when it is received,” the spokesperson said.

The suit claims that City of Yes violates principles established in the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require an exhaustive review of environmental impacts known in legal terms as a “hard look.”

The opponents, represented by East Hampton-based attorney Jack Lester, claim that passing City of Yes in three stages — Carbon Neutrality, Economic Opportunity and Housing Opportunity — is a “violation of law served to avoid assessing the cumulative impacts of each phase of the Rezoning.” 

Each of the three phases of City of Yes had its own environmental review, but the opponents argued that conducting environmental reviews on a citywide level is inappropriate and doesn’t meet the “hard look” standards.

Mitchell Korbey, a partner at Herrick Feinstein and chair of the law firm’s land use and zoning group, told Bisnow that each of the three stages' environmental review is likely to be seen as sufficient to comply with state law. Plaintiffs also argued that the city didn't offer any mitigation or alternatives.

“I think ultimately that's not correct,” Korbey said. “I think that the court will see it the city's way.”

Lower-density neighborhoods’ fingerprints were all over the amendments that were made to City of Yes for Housing Opportunity before it went before the City Council, such as the changes to parking requirements, Kramer Levin Counsel Patrick Sullivan said.

While the groups' legal challenge — which asks a judge to issue an injunction preventing the city from implementing the rezoning — might be unsuccessful, it could still slow down City of Yes' goal of creating more new housing

“All of the private developers and private owners who are now using the law and implementing it will need to make business decisions about whether to go forward under the new law,” Sullivan said. “It's possible it will have a chilling effect.”

UPDATE, MARCH 26, 3:30 P.M. ET: This story has been updated with a statement from a City Hall spokesperson.