Source: https://casetext.com/brief/b74a31f0-in-the-matter-of-the-friends-of-ps-163-inc-et-al-appellantsvjewish-home-lifecare-manhattan-respondent-new-york-state-department-of-health-et-al-respondents-in-the-matter-of-daisy-wright-et-al-appellants-v-new-york-state-department-of-health-
Timestamp: 2020-08-09 14:12:48
Document Index: 151666668

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2590', '§ 500', '§ 500', '§ 500', '§ 2590', '§8', '§ 500']

In the Matter of The Friends of P.S. 163, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan, Respondent, New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents.---------------------------------In the Matter of Daisy Wright, et al., Appellants, v. New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents, Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan, Respondent. | Brief | Casetext
In the Matter of The Friends of P.S. 163, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan, Respondent, New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents.---------------------------------In the Matter of Daisy Wright, et al., Appellants, v. New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents, Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan, Respondent.
N.Y.Nov 16, 2017
APL-2017-00099 New York County Clerk’s Index Nos. 100546/15 and 100641/15 (Emtrt of Jÿppe&ls STATE OF NEW YORK Index No. 100546/15 In the Matter of the Application of THE FRIENDS OF P.S. 163, INC.; THE P.S. 163 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAM; JOSHUA KROSS; MILES KROSS, by his father, Joshua Kross; STELLA KROSS, by her father, Joshua Kross; EUGENIA FINGERMAN; ELIJAH FINGERMAN, by his mother, Eugenia Fingerman; GISELLE SANCHEZ; GIOVANNI FELICIANO, by his mother, Giselle Sanchez; LUCINDY CUEVAS; ANNELI LOPEZ, by her mother, Lucindy Cuevas; KEVIN RICHARDSON; CAMERON RICHARDSON, by his father, Kevin Richardson; DANIEL WEBSTER; DANIEL J. WEBSTER, by his father, Daniel Webster; DANIEL HOLT; and RACHEL BAKER-HOLT, by her father, Daniel Holt, Petitioners-Appellants, for a Judgment under Article 78, — against— JEWISH HOME LIFECARE, MANHATTAN, Respondent-Respondent, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 156 W. 106TH STREET HOLDING CORP., 102 W. 107TH CORP., and PWV OWNER, LLC, Respondents. ('Caption continued on inside cover) BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT GALE BREWER ET AL. IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS JAMES CARAS ADELE BARTLETT OFFICE OF MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT GALE A. BREWER 1 Centre Street, 19th Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 669-8300 Facsimile: (212) 669-4305 Attorneys for Amici CuriaeOctober 6, 2017 Index No. 100641/15 In the Matter of the Application of DAISY WRIGHT; NATHANIEL ROBERT LIVINGSTON, by his parent Daisy Wright; OLIVER WRIGHT LIVINGSTON, by his parent Daisy Wright; ELIZABETH WRIGHT; BERNIE WRIGHT, by his parent Elizabeth Wright; VIVIAN DEE; SONIA GARCIA; JOAN HEITNER; PATRICIA LOFTMAN; LILLIAN PRYOR; EILEEN SALZIG; VALERIA SPANN, and WALTER REINHARDT, Petitioners-Appellants, for a Judgment under Article 78, — against— NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, HOWARD ZUCKER, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, PWV OWNER, LLC, 156 W. 106TH STREET HOLDING CORPORATION, and 102 W. 107TH CORPORATION, Respondents, JEWISH HOME LIFECARE, MANHATTAN, Respondent-Respondent. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENTS OF INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ARGUMENT I. THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION MUST BE REVERSED AND THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT REINSTATED A. The Appellate Division Holding Undermines SEQRA’s Purpose B. The Appellate Division Holding Endangers All New York City Children C. The Appellate Division Holding Discriminates Against Low Income and Minority New Yorkers 11 1 4 4 6 13 15 18CONCLUSION -i- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Action for Rational Transit v. West Side Highway Project, 536 F.Supp 1225, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17519 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State ofN.Y., 100 N.Y.2d 893, 801 N.E.2d 326, 769 N.Y.S.2d 106 (2003) Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State ofN.Y., 86 N.Y.2d 307, 631 N.Y.S.2d 555, 655 N.E.2d 651 (1995) Jackson v N.Y. State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 494 N.E.2d 429, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298 (1986) Statutes 8 16 12 5,8 N.Y.S. Constitution, Article XI, Section 1 New York State Education Law § 2590 New York State Environmental Quality Review Act Other Authorities 12 1 .passim 122 N.Y.C.R.R. § 500.1(f).. 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 500.23(a), 1 Does Noise Affect Learning? A Short Review on Noise Effects On Cognitive Performance In Children, Frontiers in Psychology, Aug. 30, 2013 http://evgrieve.com/2013/01/construction-site-at-185-avenue-b.html.... https://data.citvofnewvork.us/Education/School-Demographics-and- Accountabilitv-Snapshot-20/ihfw-zv9i/data https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110620/chelsea-heIls- kitchen/health-fears-prompt-plans-split-hells-kitchens-ps-51 12 17 17 16 -ii- New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Lead Poisoning Annual Prevention Program, Annual Report TriBeCa School’s Squeaky Wheels Get Some Peace, The New York Times, Sept. 29, 2005 World Health Organization, Lead Poisoning and Health Factsheet, Aug. 2017 10 17, 18 10 -iii- CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of the New York Court of Appeals, 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 500.1(f) & 500.23(a), Amicus Curiae Community Education Council District 3 states that it is authorized by New York State Education Law § 2590. CEC 3 has no parents, subsidiaries or affiliates. Amicus Curiae Coalition for Safe Schools and Fight for 51 are both unincorporated associations operating under the laws of the State of New York. They each state they have no parents, subsidiaries or affiliates. STATEMENTS OF INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT GALE A. BREWER As the Borough President of Manhattan, Gale A. Brewer, pursuant to the New York City Charter, has the power and obligation to study and make recommendations on matters that impact the interests of the people of the Borough of Manhattan. The Borough President maintains a planning office to assist in planning for the growth, improvement and development of the borough. She and her staff monitor the performance of schools in the borough, with an emphasis on quality of education and quality of life services for students, and have published numerous studies thereof. Her office appoints two members to each Community Education Council, and provides them with support in their work. Her office publishes annually a guide to New York City Schools. -1- NEW YORK CITY COUNCILMEMBER MARK D. LEVINE As the elected Member of the City Council representing the district which is home to P.S. 163, Councilmember Mark D. Levine has been involved with the DOH and community studies to the risks and potential mitigation mandated for the proposed Jewish Home Lifecare (“JHL”) development. NEW YORK CITY COUNCILMEMBER HELEN ROSENTHAL Helen Rosenthal is a member of the New York City Council representing District Six on the upper west side of Manhattan. Her district abuts District Seven, in which P.S. 163 is located. A large number of students of P.S. 163 live within Councilmember Rosenthal’s district and she is committed to doing what she can to ensure their full education rights, as well as their health and safety. Prior to being elected to represent Council District Six in the City Council in 2013, Ms. Rosenthal was chair of Manhattan Community Board 7, in which P.S. 163 is located. She led the Community Board’s efforts to participate in the public education and input regarding the proposed JHL construction. COMMUNITY EDUCATION COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 Community Educational Council District 3 (“CEC3”) is one of the 32 Community Education Councils (“CECs”) in New York City. CEC3 represents Community School District 3 which includes public elementary and middle schools between 59th Street and 122th Streets in Manhattan. CEC3’s -2- responsibilities are established by state law and implemented through regulations of the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education. Each CEC is comprised of parents whose children attend public elementary or middle schools within the district they serve and are elected by representatives of the parent teacher associations at each of those schools. Each CEC is responsible for promoting student achievement, approving zoning lines, reviewing the district’s educational programs and assessing their effect on student achievement, holding public hearings on the district’s annual capacity plans and any significant change in school utilization. These responsibilities include: approving school zoning lines, holding hearings on the capital plan, evaluating community superintendents, and providing input on other important policy issues. UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, THE MOVEMENT OF RANK AND FILE EDUCATORS The Movement of Rank and File Educators (“MORE”) is a caucus within the United Federation of Teachers, the largest teachers’ union in the nation. MORE was formed in 2011 by rank and file educators whose central priority is the development of a more active and democratic union that can effectively fight for the basic union rights of our members. MORE works collectively with fellow rank and file members to become more actively involved in efforts to turn things around. This includes building stronger and more effective union chapters in schools, connecting members with others around the city who are combatting -3- policies that have a detrimental impact on our working conditions and students’ learning conditions, and encouraging members to join in various efforts to turn the union into one that can lead the fight on all of these fronts. COALITION FOR SAFE SCHOOLS An unincorporated association of public and private school communities in New York City, representing thousands of parents and students, this coalition is concerned about the impact of construction noise on the education and welfare of all students. The coalition’s goal is to ensure swift passage of Intro Bill 420, an amendment to the New York City Noise Ordinance that would protect schools from major construction projects. FIGHT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL 51 Fight for Public School 51 is an unincorporated association comprised of parents of children at Public School 51 in Manhattan who organized beginning in the 2010-11 academic year to demand that their school be relocated during massive construction directly next to their school. This association advocated for their children’s health and an effective learning environment. ARGUMENT I. THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION MUST BE REVERSED AND THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT REINSTATED. The amici submit this brief urging the Court to overturn the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department, which itself reversed a Supreme Court, New -4- York County order annulling the findings of the New York State Department of Health (hereinafter “DOH”) which would have permitted construction of a 20- story facility on the property abutting P.S. 163 on West 97th Street in Manhattan without adequate protections for the children of the school. The Supreme Court order directed DOH to take a harder look at the potential harm from both the noise and the disturbance of lead dust posed to the young children attending P.S. 163 during the construction period of at least 30 months. See Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 417, 494 N.E.2d 429, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298 (1986) (analyzing the “hard look” standard). The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court order, holding that the DOH conducted sufficient studies and that the requirement that individual window air conditioners be installed in classrooms and periodic watering of the lead contaminated soil outside the classroom windows was sufficient to mitigate the harms. The amici are elected officials sworn to represent and protect the interests of all those within their districts; the local Community Education Council and groups advocating for the welfare of public school children. They believe that the Appellate Division determination fails to properly apply the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, (ECL 8-0102, et seq.) (hereinafter “SEQRA”) and fails to afford the children of P.S. 163 the protections of that law. Moreover, if -5- the Appellate Division holding is permitted to stand, amici believe that all children within the City will be at risk for harm, without the protections that SEQRA is intended to provide. A. The Appellate Division Holding Undermines SEQRA’s Purpose. The purpose of SEQRA is to protect essential elements in the environment that can be expected to be affected by proposed action which is regulated or licensed by a State agency. When a project or activity may be expected to impact any aspect of the surrounding environment, the approving or regulating agency must study the proposed activity, and the elements of the environment at risk. The statute itself states: “It is the intent of the legislature that the protection and enhancement of the environment, human and community resources shall be given appropriate weight with social and economic consideration in public policy.” SEQRA §8-0103(7). In the instant case, the “human” resources that should have been given appropriate weight by the DOH are the approximately 600 children, ages three through 11, attending P.S. 163 and their teachers. In order to follow the dictates of SEQRA and its intent, DOH was required to examine the potential impact of the proposed construction on the children (and teachers) in light of their specific and particular characteristics, and the particular vulnerabilities those characteristics bring. In other words, the agency, in order to apply the statute fully and fairly in -6- this instance, was required to take a hard look at the potential impact on the children, in light of their ages, economic background, ethnic composition and the activities in which they are engaged. In this case, the agency was required to give appropriate weight to the fact that the children in P.S. 163 are engaged in crucial elementary learning; that they are predominantly from economic and racial backgrounds that are likely to result in their exposure to additional environmental toxins outside the school environment; that, for the most part, they are of an age where exposure to both lead dust and excessive disruptive sounds have a greater deleterious impact than on older children or adults. An agency plan that approaches its analysis of potential impact and required mitigation of an “environment” in general terms, without consideration of a specific, peculiarly vulnerable part of that environment, denies full protection of the law to the most disadvantaged. The different elements in an environment, in order to be treated fairly and equally under SEQRA, must be evaluated and protected according to their own specific characteristics. For example, a construction plan that would cause harm to neighboring woodlands cannot be evaluated only as to protection of the hardiest of trees, but must include evaluation and protection of all, including the most vulnerable flora. Here, the most vulnerable population- and arguably the one to which as a matter of policy, -7- government owes the greater consideration and protection- is the population of P.S. 163. Yet the DOH neither specifically studied nor gave the children the specific protection required. The Appellate Division, in its analysis overturning the Supreme Court order, refers repeatedly to the holding of this Court in Jackson for its position that not all possible areas of concern need be addressed in the SEQRA process. In the Jackson decision, this Court countered the argument of appellants that insufficient attention had been given to the secondary displacement pressure that senior citizens would likely encounter from the development process. This Court found that it is not necessary for an agency to “separately consider every conceivable subgroup” in its analysis. 67 N.Y.2d at 442. This Court in Jackson distinguished the consideration of the impact on seniors from the environmental impact at issue in Action for Rational Transit v. West Side Highway Project, 536 F.Supp 1225, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17519 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), where the “project area was a highly significant and productive area for fish, including the striped bass,” yet the potential impact of the proposed action on the habitat and life cycle of the bass had not been disclosed and considered. 67 N.Y.2d at 421. The federal court held that the failure to disclose and focus on the protection of a species whose habitat, and very life cycle could be impacted by the proposed development was fatal to the study at issue. 536 F. Supp. 1225. -8- Amici urge this Court to recognize, as the Appellate Division did not, that the young children occupying P.S.163 are in fact the most important and significant element of the environment at issue in the project area here. Their development during the crucial period of early elementary education must be considered of great importance. Since the anticipated impact on the environment and well-being of the children is the paramount concern, the extent of the mitigation efforts must be viewed in that light. The mitigation must, to the fullest extent possible, eliminate the dangers to the school children’s environment posed by the planned construction activity. The DOH study acknowledged the presence of residual lead in the ground that would be disturbed during construction. The final plan directed mitigation to protect the workers at the proposed construction site against airborne lead dust in the form of requiring tarps to cover lead contaminated soil on trucks, and Tyvek suits to be worn on the job. Clearly, the agency found these precautions necessary to protect the adult workers at the construction site. But to protect the children, in classrooms, behind unsealed windows only feet away, the DOH final plan requires only the intermittent watering down of the dirt, and air quality monitoring. It is well-established that, as opposed to estimates of safe lead dust exposure for adults, there is no level of lead dust exposure that is safe for children, and that any exposure at all can cause serious harm to developing human systems, including -9- brain function. See World Health Organization, Lead Poisoning and Health Factsheet, Aug. 2017. It is also known that a) the majority of the City’s stressed housing stock is found in minority-majority and low-income areas, and that b) this housing has higher levels of peeling paint and other conditions that expose children to lead hazards. The Upper West Side neighborhood of Manhattan has some of the highest rates of elevated blood levels in children in New York City. See New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Lead Poisoning Annual Prevention Program, Annual Report, 2009. By mandating mitigation to protect adult construction workers from exposure to lead dust, including the wearing of protective suits, while failing to provide for the prevention of lead dust exposure of the children next door, the DOH plan deprives those children of their right to the protections of SEQRA. The Appellate Division’s reversal of the Supreme Court order also denied the students their right to SEQRA consideration regarding exposure to the excessive noise predicted to be generated by the project over at least a 14-month period. That decision found sufficient the DOH directive finding that the effect of such noise could be sufficiently mitigated by installation of new, acoustical windows in part of the school, and the installation of individual room air conditioners in the classrooms facing the construction. -10- This position clearly fails to protect the health and well-being of the students. First, the effect of any new, purportedly sound-proofing window glass would be undercut by the individual air conditioner installations, since the windows would not be able to be effectively sealed. Second, the lack of a complete seal on the classroom windows would only maintain the dangers of the exposure of the children to airborne lead dust. Thus, the DOH mitigation would completely fail to offer the necessary protection against either the excessive noise or the lead dust. The only reasonable means to shut out both the noise and the dust would be to seal the school windows completely against both, and provide safe and effective central cooling and heating. Here again, both the DOH mitigation plan, and the Appellate Division holding, fail to take the required “hard look” at the environmental factor represented by the children attending P.S. 163 and their right to safety, health and education. The claim that the disruptive noise will only occur for a total of 14 months and therefore the mitigation of central air installation is, on balance, not required, is especially cynical and unfair to these children. As in the case of exposure to lead dust, the DOH and the courts must be cognizant that children are not miniature adults. First, the activity in which they are engaged, i.e., elementary learning, will have an impact on their entire futures. Second, their bodies, brains and neurological systems are incomplete and in developmental states. While 14 -11- months of disruptive noise might be a great annoyance to adults, distracting them from work or interrupting sleep, it can wreak havoc with the cognitive development of a young child. See generally Does Noise Affect Learning? A Short Review on Noise Effects On Cognitive Performance In Children, Frontiers in Psychology, Aug 30, 2013. Finally, the fact that what is at issue here is whether a “hard look” was taken at the environmental impact of 14 months construction on an elementary school located just 30 feet away from the project site cannot be understated. The New York State Constitution guarantees these children the right to a “sound basic education.” See N.Y.S. Constitution, Article XI, Section 1; Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State ofN.Y., 86 N.Y.2d 307, 631 N.Y.S.2d 555, 655 N.E.2d 651 (1995). The quality of the learning environment during the first crucial years of schooling is fundamental to meeting this obligation and is at stake here. Indeed, in the funding context, this Court has ruled that “Children are entitled to minimally adequate physical facilities and classrooms which provide enough light, space, heat, and air to permit children to learn.” This is precisely the principle that amici are asking this Court to require DOH to follow, which is lacking in its final environmental impact statement. -12- The Supreme Court order recognized the right of the P.S. 163 children to protection under the law. The Appellate Division improperly reversed the Supreme Court finding, and should therefore be reversed by this Court. B. The Appellate Division Holding Endangers All New York City Children. SEQRA requires that where proposed development activity is planned, the regulating agency must take a hard look at the impact on the environment of the planned activity. School-age children, especially those in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade, represent a specific “environment.” Just as different waterways, different species of trees and wildlife each react differently to the same environmental stress, young children face different dangers than adults from the same activity. In reversing the Supreme Court decision, the Appellate Division holding fails to grant the children of P.S. 163 the consideration they are due under SEQRA. The position taken by the lead agency in this proceeding, that the special health and safety needs of school-age children can be disregarded, or subsumed into an assessment of the general environmental impact, endangers all children residing or attending school at or nearby proposed construction sites regulated by SEQRA. When major construction is planned in a location adjacent to an elementary school, the lead agency must view that school and the children as the primary -13- element of the environment which will be impacted by the activity. The children of New York City public schools, like all children, have only one childhood-one special time for learning, for growing healthy and strong and for cognitive development. They are not ancillary, secondary or a subgroup whose protection can be dismissed, as the Appellate Division holding does, in noting that “not every conceivable environmental impact, mitigating measure or alternative must be addressed.” When lead-containing soil will be disturbed by construction activity, creating the potential for airborne lead dust within feet of an elementary school, the mitigation of that very real risk to the health and safety of the children in the school must be pursued to the point of elimination of the risk. When construction noise will occur during school hours within feet of young children, interfering with their cognitive development, mitigation of that noise must be analyzed to address how to prevent such a negative and harmful impact. If not reversed, the holding of the Appellate Division in this case will permit regulating agencies, assessing environmental impact of proposed construction to treat schools, and the particular risks to children in those schools, as secondary concerns, to be weighed lightly against the cost to developers of mitigating the potential harm. The intent of SEQRA is the protection of human welfare, and the interpretation of the Appellate Division fails to do that. -14- C. The Appellate Division Holding Discriminates Against Low Income and Minority New Yorkers. According to the 2010 United States Census, the population of the City of New York is approximately 64% non-white, while the population of New York City public schools is more than 75% non-white. The 2010 Census also found that approximately 18.5% of New York household lived below the poverty level, while more than 75% of students in the New York City public school system qualify for free or reduced lunch. The student population of P.S. 163 is consistent with the city-wide public school percentages. Clearly, the student population of New York City Schools, along with their parents, lack the financial and political influence to force potential developers to expend the resources necessary to protect their children from the potential harm such development may threaten. They must depend on the good faith compliance by regulating agencies with the spirit and intent of SEQRA to protect them from negative forces during development activities. SEQRA was itself enacted to protect natural resources-which likewise cannot speak or act for themselves- against harm by, generally, more well-resourced and powerful entities. As elected officials and advocates for New York City public school children, amici have seen those children and their needs shortchanged repeatedly by the entities that should be protecting them. For more than a decade, the children of New York City public schools and their parents have been looking to the courts for -15- fair treatment. See Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State ofN.Y., 100 N.Y.2d 893, 801 N.E.2d 326, 769 N.Y.S.2d 106 (2003). Without the financial or political power to demand proper treatment, the public school children of New York City must continue to look to the courts and the law for equal treatment and protection of their rights. The Supreme Court decision directed that DOH take action, under SEQRA, to protect the children of P.S. 163 and their health and welfare. The Appellate Division reversed that directive to protect, and the implications of that decision, if it prevails, will put all public school children in New York City unprotected by the law and once again they will be unnecessarily disadvantaged. Over the past two decades, amici have seen intense development in Manhattan which, where occurring next to public schools, has endangered the well-being and educational opportunity of the children in those schools. Most of these developments occurred without an environmental review or SEQRA proceeding by a State regulating agency. Examples can be found in news reports on projects including development next to P.S. 51 in Hell’s Kitchen, where after suffering through deafening noise, and the discovery that the children had been exposed to ground toxins, the students were forced to relocate for two years1; and construction of luxury housing next to P.S. 361 on the Lower East Side where 1 See https://www.dnainfo.com/new-vorlc/20110620/chclsea-hclls-kitchen/health-fcars-proinpt- plans-split-hells-kitchens-ns-51 -16- children suffered through relentless pile driving for months of the school year2. In these cases, the schools, with majorities of non-white, low-income students, suffered from their relative lack of power to force mitigation of the effects of construction. However, in one reported instance, the parents of a public school were able to bring about sufficient protections against construction harm. In 2005, P.S. 234, in the Tribeca neighborhood of Manhattan confronted a proposal to build a large residential development nearby. The parents of P.S. 234 were able to mount an impressive fight, and win the battle for all necessary mitigation provisions to protect their children from the effects of deafening noise and other harm. See TriBeCa School’s Squeaky Wheels Get Some Peace, The New York Times, Sept. 29, 2005. The population of P.S. 234 in 2005-2006 was 68% white, 8.7% black and 7.4% Latino. Only 7.5% of the students came from households whose income qualified them for free school lunch. See https://data.citvofnewvork.us/Education/School-Demographics-and- Accountabilitv-Snapshot-20/ihfw-zv9i/data. In what was characterized in the media as an anomalous victory against a developer, the developer of a building behind P.S. 234 in TriBeCa was forced by See http://evgrieve.com/2013/01/conslruciion-site-at- I8S-avenue-b.htm 1 -17- parents to engage in extensive noise remediation measures. The New York Times report of how the school achieved this was described as a lesson in “how public- school parents with resources can reach into their pockets to win battles and how unlike other City public schools which struggle to meet the need for basic necessities, parents at P.S. 234 have the means to hire an acoustical engineering firm to determine the ideal noise level of a construction site near a school.” New York Times, Sept. 29, 2005. The unfortunate conclusion is that where parents have substantial social and economic power to do so, their children can obtain protection from the harm threatened by substantial construction work next to their public school. But the State laws, including SEQRA, should provide equal protection from such harm to all children, regardless of their race and economic circumstances. Amici pray that this Court will make that goal a reality by reinstating the order of the Supreme Court. -18- CONCLUSION The Court should reverse the decision of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, and reinstate the Order of the New York County Supreme Court. Dated: New York, New York October 5, 2017 Respectfully submitted, %YP: AdefeBartlett, Iisq. Deputy General Counsel James A. Caras, Esq. General Counsel Office of the Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer 1 Centre Street, 19th Floor New York, N.Y. 10007 Counsel for the Amici Curiae -19- PRINTING SPECIFICATION STATEMENT This brief was prepared with Microsoft Word 2016, suing Times New Roman 14 point font for the body and Times New Roman 12 point font for the footnotes. According to the aforementioned processing system, the portions of the brief that must be included in a word count pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 500.13(c)(1) contain 4,042 words. -20-