Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/58003522/Respondents-Memorandum-of-Law-in-Opposition-to-the-Petition
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:52:32+00:00

Document:
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, submit this memorandum of law in opposition to the amended petition.
A map that details the various components of the PPW Project is included as DOT Ex. A. Exhibits cited as DOT Ex. are either annexed to the respondents Verified Answer and Affidavits of Joshua Benson. Penny Jackson. Jared Knowles, and Naim Rasheed, or are included in an accompanying volume of additional exhibits. Exhibits designated Am. Pet. Ex. are attached to the Affirmation of Jim Walden filed in support of the amended petition.
speeding and bicycles traveling on its sidewalks, and that alternative locations would not address these problems. Since there was a rational basis for DOTs determination, this claim fails. Petitioners State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) claims are also both unfounded. DOT has rationally determined that installation of a bike lane or bike path is among the types of actions that are exempted from requirements to perform environmental review, including any obligation to generate written environmental analysis, under SEQRAs implementing regulations. And Petitioners claim premised on the Citys Landmark Preservation Law fails since the PPW Project is not located within either the Park Slope Historic District or the Prospect Park Scenic Landmark.
DOT identified PPW as a possible location for a bike lane or bike path in its map of Brooklyn in the Bike Master Plan. See DOT Ex. B (Bike Master Plan). While petitioners contend that a traditional one-way bike [lane] was planned for PPW (Am. Pet., at 13), the Bike Master Plan shows no such thing. Id. In fact, the Bike Master Plan did not provide any specifics as to the design of particular bike lanes or bike paths on particular streets, but rather highlighted streets that would be needed to create a citywide network of routes between major destinations and residential areas. The Bike Master Plan specifically noted that each potential bike lane and bike path needed to be studied in detail to develop an appropriate design, and also noted the availability of two-way bike path designs. DOT Ex. B, at 10, 42-44 & 61.
physically separated from motor vehicle traffic for enhanced safety. Benson, sworn to on June 3, 201 1 (Benson Aff.), at 2, fn 2.
The 110-year-old Park Slope Civic Council stated: we believe that the excess capacity on Prospect Park West leads to speeding and creates a dangerous condition for the many users seeking to access [Prospect] park. DOT Ex. E (4/20/10 Park Slope Civic Council Letter to DOT Brooklyn Borough Commissioner).
th Petitioners insinuate that while DOT monitored 8 Avenue at three additional times (in Jul and November 2007 and September 2008). DOT did not similarly monitor PPW during those times for some untoward purpose. Petitioners insinuation is wrong, Specifically, DOT th monitored 8 Avenue at three additional times (between July 2007 and September 2008) as part of the development of signal timing schemes for two lane one-way corridors throughout the City. Benson Aff., at 5. fn 6.
that bicyclists can ride on, it has numerous intersections that increase the potential lbr conflicts and crashes among motorists and bicyclists, thereby decreasing the desirability and use by bicyclists. Moreover.
Avenue does not connect directly with Prospect Park entrances.
On May 13, 2009, Community Board 6 voted in favor of the DOT proposal. but also asked that installation of the PPW Project be delayed until September 2009 so that DOT Petitioners also contend that DOT did not prepare a pedestrian safety action plan in accordance with a Federal Highway Administration document titled How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Am. Pet.. at 8 1-83. That contention is also misplaced. and addressed in detail in the Benson Affidavit, at paragraphs 13 and 22 and footnote 14, See also DOT Ex. T.
On April 12, 2010, DOT presented its revised proposal to a community Open House sponsored by City Council Members Steve Levin and Brad Lander, Community Board 6 and DOT; more than one hundred people attended. DOT Ex. I. And on April 29, 2010, DOT again presented its revised proposal, this time to the Community Board 6 Transportation 9 Committee, DOT Ex. J.
The June 2010 Installation of the PPW Project In June 2010 the PPW Project was installed. One traffic lane was eliminated.
Signs requiring cyclists to yield to pedestrians at each crosswalk were also installed. In addition, pedestrian islands flush with the roadway were designated at each of the pedestrian crossings, and warning signs were designated that alerted pedestrians to Look both ways before crossing. Pavement markings at each crosswalk were installed for pedestrians with a Look word message and double arrow to call attention to the two-way bicycle traffic.
at 21. Moreover, unlike other DOT projects that are identified in DOT documents as being trial or pilot projects, the PPW Project was not so identified. Benson Aff. at 22; DOT Ex. L. Petitioners incorrectly attempt to claim that the PPW Project is unique or experimental. Am. Pet., at 1 et seq.. In fact. there are at least six other similar two-way bike paths in New York City, one each on Kent Avenue, Williamsburg Street West, Flushing Avenue, Tillarv Street in Brooklyn, one running alongside the West Side Highway for about five miles and one along South Street in Manhattan. Benson Aff., at 23, fn 17. These were the first PPW traffic signal adjustments since the March 2007 adjustments. See Benson Aff., at 23.
the evaluation (based on the underlying raw data) shows that DOTs determination was 4 appropriate.
The evaluation shows that the installation of the PPW Project was a resounding success. The incidence of speeding declined precipitously. Previously nearly three of every fur vehicles exceeded the speed limit on PPW. DOT Ex. D, at 7. In stark contrast. after the PPW Project was installed, only one in five vehicles exceeded the speed limit. Id. Similar to the dramatic decline in speeding. bicyclists riding on the sidewalk also declined precipitously, from 20 percent to four percent on weekend days, and from 46 percent to three percent on weekdays. 6 the first time in their reply papers cannot be considered for the purpose of establishing their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.), Petitioners attempt to question the validity of DOTs data relating to the reduction of speeding on PPW. See Am. Pet. at J 67-68. That attempt fails. As explained in extensive detail in the Benson Affidavit, the results presented in the DOT Evaluation discussed the radar readings on th th PPW between 5 and 6 Streets, which is almost exactly in the middle of the PPW corridor and provides the best indicator of how the PPW corridor is performing. DOT Ex. A. Moreover, the th 5 t1 6 Street location had the highest recorded speeds from the March 2009 radar readings, and thus the speeding problem was most acute at that location. DOT Ex. D; Benson Aff., at 29. DOT did not report data from the other two locations for two distinct reasons. First, the other locations are at opposite ends of the PPW corridor, and thus speeds at those locations are influenced by Grand Army Plaza and Bartel Pritchard Square. DOT Ex. A. Second, for these other locations DOT did not have complete data match sets. Benson Aff., at 29. In any event, the data match sets DOT did have for these locations all showed a decline in speeding after installation of the PPW Project. Benson Aff., at 29; DOT Ex. D.
Petitioners take issue with the several components of the methodology used by DOT to perform these comparisons, arguing that the pre-installation weekday count was low due to weather conditions, and that the post-installation counts were questionable since they were not taken in the exact same location as the pre-installation counts. Am. Pet., at ! 66: Affidavit of Eric R. Fox, sworn to on March 7, 2011 (Fox Aff.), at 27 & 30. While the pre-installation weekday count may have been low due to weather conditions, there is no question that the number of bicyclists riding on the sidewalk has decreased significantly. For instance, the pre installation weekend day count for bicyclists on the sidewalk was 1 58 in comparison to between 71 and 51 bicyclists on the sidewalk during the four post-installation counts. DOT Ex. D. at 6 and accompanying pages. Moreover, this figure is even more significant when considering that bicycle usage of PPW (on the sidewalks, bike path and Street) more than doubled after the installation of the PPW Project. Id. And while the before and after counting locations were not in identical spots, that is insignificant Since the two locations are right next to each other. and there is no break. such as a park entrance. in the bike path between 3rd and 5th Streets. Benson Aff..at27, fn23.
I)OT Ex. D. at 5 & 6. And the PPW Project facilitated access to Prospect Park by permitting bicyclists to safely and legally ride either north or south on PPW to Prospect Park entrances on Grand Army Plaza, 3 Street and Bartel Pritchard Square.
62; Fox Aff., at J 7-17.
report final 201 Oweh2 .pdf.
ARGUMENT POINT I ASIDE FROM THE FOIL CLAIM, THE PETITION IS TIME-BARRED UNDER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO CPLR ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDINGS.
Petitioners seek CPLR Article 78 relief in this proceeding.
nonetheless time barred since the State DOTs construction contract had been awarded more than four months before the petitioners commenced their proceeding. Cohen, 2 A.D.3d at 524-525. Similarly, in Villella, State DOT advertised bids to replace various signs along an interstate highway; nearly six months later several tourist-related businesses near the interstate commenced an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State DOT project, essentially arguing that the project would cause a diversion of traffic that would negatively affect their.,. businesses. Strong public policy considerations support strict enforcement of the statute of limitations in cases of claims against a municipality. Indeed. New York State General City Law 20(5) specifically prohibits a municipality from waiving the defense of the statute of limitations. See also Farrell v. City of N.Y., 197 Misc. 1059 (Sup. Ct,, App. Term. 1st Dept 1950).
even it it was possible that the pe1itioners might not have been aware of the proiects implementation until the letting of bids was publicS the proceeding was still time barred since it was not commenced within four months of the advertisement of the bids. And in Gerson, the Court held that petitioners Article 78 proceeding challenging a multi-phase street reconstruction project was time-barred since it was brought more than four months after the actual onsite construction began, which was the very latest date that the statute of limitations began to run.
therefore constituted an action as defined in the SEQRA regulations.
A.D,2d 97 (1st Dept), affd 62 N.Y.2d 900 (1984) (rejecting CEQR elements of challenge to a decision that had occurred more than four months prior to the raising of the CEQR claim).
The installation of the PPW Project also commit[ted DOT]... to a definite course of future decisions about maintenance and ongoing operation of the lane. thus also constituting an action under SEQRA. See 6 NYCRR 617.2(b)(2).
that the PPW Project was installed for a trial period or that it was experimental.
And petitioners were clearly aggrieved in June 2010 when the PPW Project was installed. since at that time the presidents of the two petitioner organizations sent c-mails to City officials complaining about the PPW Project. DOT Ex. M.
Midtown Program to Reduce Congestion). There is no factual basis for the experimental or irial denomination, and petitioners have not identified any action DOT undertook during the four months prior to the filing of this proceeding that would be appropriately subject to an Article 78 challenge at this time. And while petitioners do not appear to be challenging them. DOTs minor enhancements to the PPW Project following its installation in June 2010 did not reset or pause the four-month statute of limitations clock. Benson Aff.
enhancements, which were in any event completed by early October 201 1): Douglaston & Little Neck Coalition v, Sexton, 145 A.D.2d 480, 480-81 (2d Dept 1988) (challenge to siting of sanitation garage was time-barred because it was filed more than four months after approval of garage, notwithstanding subsequent incidental or technological changes to the garage plans); Monteiro v. Town of Colonie, 158 A.D.2d 246, 50 (3d Dept 1990) the time to complain of SEQRA violations was within four months of the concept approval of the... proposal for expanding a shopping mall, despite changes to the mall plans that had occurred within four months of filing). Since the four-month statute of limitations to challenge DOTs installation of the PPW Project expired months before the commencement of this Article 78 proceeding. the petition must be dismissed in its entirety.
POINT II RESPONDENTS DECISION TO iNSTALL THE PPW PROJECT ON PROSPECT PARK WEST WAS IN ALL RESPECTS RATIONAL. REASONABLE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.
30 N.Y.2d 269, 278 (1972).
exercise of discretion, the courts cannot interfere unless there is no rational basis for the exercise of discretion or the action complained of is arbitrary or capricious. Pell, 34 N.Y.2d at 230-3 1; see also Cohen v. State of N.Y., 2 A.D.3d at 525: Schatz v. Dept of Consumer Affairs, 177 A,D.2d 324. 326 (1st Dept 1991). Thus, the question before the Court in an Article 78 proceeding is to determine, upon the proof before the administrative agency, whether the determination had a rational basis in the record or was arbitrary and capricious. Disposition of the proceeding is limited to the and record adduced before the agency when the administrative determination was rendered.
determination was rational. based upon the information before the administrative body at the time the challenged decision was rendered, then that determination must be upheld.
determinations of an administrative agency interpreting and administering statutes and regulations should be accorded great weight. Forest Hills Tenants Assoc. v. Joy, 91 A.D.2d 912 (1st Dept 1983), afPd, 59 N.Y.2d 1007 (1983).
B. DOTs Determination to Install the PPW Project was a Rational Exercise of its Discretionary Authority.
ride either north or south on PPW to Prospect Park entrances on Grand Army Plaza.
whose personnel have extensive experience in urban planning and the assessment and evaluation See. g. Benson Aff.. at 9; DOT Ex. C (Community Board 6 Letter dated 7/13/09 to DOT Brooklyn Borough Commissioner: we have been seeking relief from speeding traffic along the Prospect Park West corridor for some time now); DOT Ex. E (4/20/10 Park Slope Civic Council Letter to DOT Brooklyn Borough Commissioner: we believe that the excess capacity on Prospect Park West leads to speeding and creates a dangerous condition for the many users seeking to access [Prospect] park).
Petitioners also cite to several Penal Law provisions in an attempt to bolster their claim. Putting aside that an Article 78 proceeding is an inappropriate forum to assert Penal Law violations, the record clearly establishes that there is no factual basis for these outlandish claims. To the extent that petitioners seek mandamus relief, petitioners fail to state a cause of action for mandamus. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel performance by an administrative body or officer of a duty positively required by law. See Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Moore, 52 N.Y.2d 88 (1981). The mandamus remedy is available only where there is a clear and absolute right to the relief sought, and the body or officer whose duty it is to enforce such right has refused to perfbrm such duty. See Brusco v. Braun, 84 N.Y.2d 674, 679 (1994); County of Fulton v. State of N.Y., 76 N.Y.2d 675, 678 (1990); Lisa v. Bd. of Educ., 83 A.D.2d 949-50 (2d Dept 1981). Mandamus is not available where, as here, petitioners seek to compel DOT to exercise its discretion in a particular manner remove or modify the PPW Project because an absolute right to such relief cannot be established. See Brusco. 84 N.Y.2d at 679; County of Fulton, 76 N.Y.2d at 678.
crashes also indicated the success of the traffic calming efforts that resulted from the installation of the PPW Project. Benson Aff., at 29 } 27-30 & DOT Ex. D.
POINT III PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT DOT FAILED TO PERFORM REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW MUST FAIL.
the agency determination); Salvatore v. NYS Div. of Human Rights, 118 A,D.2d 715, 716 (2d Dept 1986) (matters which occur after the making of an administrative determination are not properly included in the record before a reviewing court). For these reasons, even if one assumes arguendo that DOT did not make a determination to make the PPW Project permanent until January 2011, that determination was nevertheless appropriate, and neither arbitrary and capricious or lacking a reasonable basis. The City Environmental Quality Review Procedure (CEQR), set forth at Title 62, Chapter 5 of the Rules of the City of New York, implements SEQRA by establishing procedures and additional substantive requirements for environmental reviews undertaken by City agencies. CEQR uses the same detinition of a Type II action set forth in SEQRA. and imposes no additional procedural requirements for Type II actions undertaken by City agencies. so the analysis herein focuses solely on SEQRA. See 62 RCNY 5-01 .
Standard of Review for SEQRA Determinations.
environmental impacts of a proposed action since SEQRA does not require an agency to act in a particular manner, or reach a particular result. See, g Coalition Against Lincoln West. Inc. v. , 1 City of N.Y., 94 A.D.2d 483, 492 (1st Dept 1983). In evaluating an agencys environmental review of an action, a court may not substitute its judgment for that of an agency, weigh the desirability of an action, or choose among alternatives. See Jackson v. N.Y.S. Urban Dev. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 417 (1986). The Legislature in SEQRA has left the agencies with considerable latitude in evaluating environmental effects... Id. A court must limit its review to whether the agencys SEQRA determination was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or affected by an error of law. Akpan v. Koch, 75 N.Y.2d 561, 570 (1990). This arbitrary and capricious standard is applicable to judicial review of Type II determinations. Comm. to Stop Airport Expansion v. Town Bd. of E. Hampton, 2 A.D.3d 850 (2d Dept 2003), app. den. 2 N.Y.3d 703 (2004) (affirming Towns classification of the repaving of an aircraft parking apron as a Type II action).
Ninth Ave. Assocs. LLC v. Bloomberg. 2 Misc. 3d 597, 600-01 (Sup. Ci. N.Y. Co. 2003) (reviewing SEQRA classifications of actions and the bases for them). C. The PPW Project is a Type II Action and Therefore Exempt from Environmental Review.
of the PPW Project as a Type II action was a reasonable exercise of discretion, not affected by an error of law, and neither arbitrary nor capricious. (a) Installation of Traffic Control Devices.
activities. See, g, Matter of Hopkins, 99 Misc. 2d 216, 217-18 (Sup.
PPW Project is a Type II action, not an Unlisted action, so this provision is irrelevant. See also Anderberg v. N.Y. State Dept of Envtl. Cons.. 141 Misc. 2d 594. 598 (Sup. Ct. Albany Co.
1988) (upholding classification of bridge replacement adjacent to historic landmark as a Type II action for SEQRA purposes. because as a Type II action it was not an Unlisted action and 6 NYCRR 3 617.4(b)(9) did not apply).
POINT IV PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT DOT WAS REQUIRED TO DOCUMENT ITS TYPE II DETERMINATION MUST FAIL.
generate such a writing with regard to the PPW Project was both rational and legal. DOT determined, prior to its installation of the PPW Project, that the creation of a protected bicycle path on an existing street is a Type II action for SEQRA purposes, such that further environmental review is not required for any such path. See Point III supra; Rasheed Aff., J 10-1 1. 6 NYCRR Making this determination fulfilled DOTs duty under the SEQRA regulations.
noting that a prior version of the SEQRA regulations deemed y action occurring in or contiguous to a historic district or site a Type I action, but that the regulation has since been revised to encompass only Type II actions); cE Town of Bedford v. White. 204 A.D.2d 557, 559 (l994)(rejecting classification of traffic signal project as Type II action, based on New York State Department of Transportations separate set of criteria for classifying its own projects as Type II actions that calls for assessment of whether the action will affect an historic district. an element not present in the SEQRA regulations applicable here).
required to generate written documentation of its Type II determination.
documentation of its Type II determination for the PPW Project lacks legal support and must be dismissed.
POINT V THE INSTALLATION OF THE PPW PROJECT DOES NOT IMPLICATE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
164): since the PPW Project is in neither, their claim fails.
POINT VI PETITIONERS FOIL CLAIM FAILS.
Finally, petitioners assert a claim separate and distinct from their claims related to DOTs installation of the PPW Project.
While there are some small signs and flashing beacons associated with the PPW Project that were installed on poles in the sidewalk directly adjacent to the PPW Project. within the boundary of the Prospect Park Scenic Landmark, the LPC does not review DOTs placement or content of such traffic control devices (or, for that matter, the placement or content of, for instance, no standing signs, one way signs or yield signs located in other historic districts and scenic landmarks). Knowles Aff., at 9. LPCs decision not to do so is well within its authority. See. Lvnbrook v. N.Y. State Public Employment Relations Bd.. 48 N.Y.2d 398. 404 (1979) (agency charged with implementing the law is presumed to have developed an expertise and judgment that requires the courts to accept the agency judgment if not unreasonable).
4. See also Am. Pet.
Since the FOiL claims stems from the NBBL FOIL request, the other petitioner Seniors for Safety, does not have standing to assert this claim.
Correspondence Unit via 3 11 or the internet, documents relating to its data collection efforts. including accident reports, DOTs public presentations (which were also available on DOTs website), and DOTs project summary sheet for the PPW Project. Jackson Aff., at 6: DOT Ex.
correspondence sent to the DOT Commissioner as well as submissions to DOT received via the internet or the 311 system, also conducted a search of responsive records. Jackson AfT., at 5.
Petitioners make a variety of allegations about the purported inadequacy of DOTs production of, all told, more than 3,000 documents relating to the PPW Project. For instance, petitioners claim that DOT did not produce any data on emergency response times, either pre- or post-installation. Am. Pet.
emergency vehicles to traverse the PPW corridor.
produce any studies it conducted before implementing the [PPW Project]. Am. Pet.
DOT Ex. BB (Gibson Dunn 11/12/10 Letter to DOT, at 1).
9. This level of detail provided by DOT was sufficient; indeed, DOT was not v.
required to itemize or identify each document that it withheld in whole or in part. Nab Sullivan, 125 A.D.2d 311,312 (2d Dept 1986).
Given DOTs extensive experience developing bicycle routes. DOT did not conduct a formal pre-installation engineering study. Benson Aff.. at 12. fn 13.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.