<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://s2.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/newyorkobserver/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Observer &#187; One Sutton Place South Sues City Over New Park </title>
	<atom:link href="http://observer.com/2007/06/one-sutton-place-south-sues-city-over-new-park/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://observer.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 15:15:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='observer.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://observer.com/osd.xml" title="Observer" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://observer.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
				
		<title>One Sutton Place South Sues City Over New Park</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2007/06/one-sutton-place-south-sues-city-over-new-park/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:40:03 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2007/06/one-sutton-place-south-sues-city-over-new-park/</link>
			<dc:creator>Mark Wellborn</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2007/06/one-sutton-place-south-sues-city-over-new-park/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The city&#039;s plan to build a park on the property of the upscale apartment building One Sutton Place South just hit a snag.</p>
<p>
Sutton Place South Corporation, the owner of the co-op at 57th Street along the East River that&#039;s included C.Z. Guest, Patricia Kennedy Lawford and Sigourney Weaver as residents, has filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court to prevent the city from building a park on land that belongs to the building. The lawsuit was filed after the Department of Transportation alerted the building on May 31 of its plans to start construction at the end of June.
</p>
<p>
According to a press release, the 1925 deed for One Sutton Place South states that the eastern boundary of the property is the &quot;high water line&quot; of the East River. An agreement between the city and the building in 1939 allowed the city to construct a part of the East River Drive on the building&#039;s property, above the high water line. However, according to the release, this agreement did not affect ownership of the property, and both agreed that the boundary between the building&#039;s property and the city&#039;s riverbed depends upon the location of the &quot;high water line.&quot;
</p>
<p>
The lawsuit asks the court to establish the location of the high water line as well as issue a permanent injunction against the city and the state from trespassing on the building&#039;s property.
</p>
<p>
The full press release is below.
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center" align="center">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold">ONE SUTTON PLACE SOUTH</span></font></strong><strong><span style="font-weight: bold"> </span></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center" align="center">
<br />
<strong><span style="font-weight: bold">SEEKS COURT INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE CITY OF NEW YORK FROM TAKING ITS<br />
PROPERTY ILLEGALLY</span></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center" align="center">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold"> </span></font></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center" align="center">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold">The City<br />
Proposes To Build A Park On Property It Does Not Own</span></font></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p>
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold">New<br />
York, NY – June 18, 2007</span></font></strong> – Sutton Place South<br />
Corporation, the owner of One Sutton Place South, announced today that it has<br />
filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan seeking an<br />
injunction to prevent the City of New York – and the State of New York,<br />
on the City’s behalf – from taking waterfront property that belongs<br />
to the building for a City park. The City does not own the property, has never<br />
acquired the property and has not taken the legally mandated steps necessary to<br />
develop a park at this location. The building has researched its rights<br />
meticulously and is confident that they will be recognized by the Court<strong><span style="font-weight: bold">.</span></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">One<br />
Sutton Place South</span></font> is located<br />
between 56<sup>th</sup> and 57<sup>th</sup> Streets on the east side of Sutton Place. The<br />
building looks out over the East River with a<br />
waterfront lawn that sits, in part, on top of a roof deck over the FDR Drive. It is<br />
the right to the use of a portion of the lawn that is in dispute.
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">Efforts to reach an<br />
amicable resolution to the dispute have failed, and the New York State<br />
Department of Transportation (acting in cooperation with the City’s Parks<br />
Department) advised the building on May 31 that it intends to commence the<br />
process of converting the building’s backyard garden into a park by the<br />
end of June.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold"> </span></font></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black;font-weight: bold">The Building’s Property Extends to the “High Water<br />
Line” of the East River</span></font></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black">The<br />
building&#039;s deed to its property (dating from 1925) provides that the eastern<br />
boundary is the &quot;high water line&quot; of the East<br />
River. In 1939, the City and the building entered into a<br />
written agreement that enabled the City to build a portion of the East River Drive on<br />
the building’s property, above the high water line; the balance of the<br />
roadway extends onto piers sunk into the riverbed. The 1939 agreement did not<br />
affect ownership of the property. Rather, the building granted the City a<br />
permanent easement, below street level, for purposes of the roadway only. The<br />
building and the City acknowledged in 1939 that the boundary between the<br />
building’s property and the City’s riverbed depends upon the<br />
location of the “high water line.”</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black">However,<br />
there is nothing in the 1939 agreement – or in any subsequent agreement<br />
entered into by the parties – which identifies the now-disputed location<br />
of the “high water line.” That line is at the heart of the dispute<br />
over where – if anywhere – the proposed park could rightly be<br />
built, because the only place it could legally be built is below the high water<br />
line.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black">Significantly,<br />
photographs taken by the City during construction of the Drive in 1939 and the<br />
City’s own construction drawing for the Drive place the “high water<br />
line” substantially farther east than where the City now contends it is<br />
located. The City has sited its proposed park in reliance on its contention<br />
that the “high water line” can be derived from a map created almost<br />
two-hundred years ago. Based upon the building’s evidence, a large<br />
portion of the City’s proposed park sits squarely on the building’s<br />
private property.  </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black">The<br />
building’s lawsuit asks the Court to hold that the building’s<br />
evidence establishes the location of the “high water line.” To<br />
preserve the <em><span style="font-style: italic">status quo</span></em> while the<br />
Court weighs the parties’ proof, the building also seeks a temporary<br />
restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing the City and the State<br />
from entering onto the disputed property pending determination of the case.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">As part of the 1939<br />
agreement, the building agreed to limit to $1.00 the amount of compensation it<br />
was to be paid by the City for the permanent easement the City acquired. In<br />
return, the building was given the right to use the entire roof deck (including<br />
both the portion it owned <em><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></em> the<br />
portion situated east of the “high water line” of the East River) for 50 years at a rental of $1.00 per year.<br />
(The 50-year lease was the longest term then permitted by law for the lease of<br />
that sort of City-owned property.) </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">The lease expired in<br />
1990. The building and the City had several discussions about extending the<br />
lease, both in the years prior to its expiration and since, but final<br />
arrangements were never agreed upon. Although the lease has expired, the<br />
building still retains all of its ownership rights in its land.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">In 1995, without<br />
following the land use review procedures mandated by the City Charter, the City<br />
purported to transfer jurisdiction over the property from what was then the<br />
Department of Docks to the Parks Department. Although its ownership rights in<br />
– and even its jurisdiction over – the disputed property are<br />
subject to considerable doubt, the Parks Department is now taking steps to<br />
convert almost all of the roof deck into a park, again without following the<br />
legal procedures required by the Charter for the “mapping” of city<br />
parks.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold">The<br />
Building’s Legal Claims</span></font></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">In its complaint filed<br />
today, the building seeks, among other relief:</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in">
	</p>
<li><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">A declaratory<br />
	judgment by the court, determining the eastern boundary of its property by<br />
	fixing the “high water line” of the East River between 56th<br />
	and 57th Streets;</span></font></li>
<p>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.25in;text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in">
	</p>
<li><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">A permanent<br />
	injunction against the City and the State, preventing them from<br />
	trespassing on the building’s private property; and</span></font></li>
<p>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.25in;text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in">
	</p>
<li><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">A declaration<br />
	that the City violated the land use review procedures mandated by the City<br />
	Charter in transferring jurisdiction over the disputed property from one<br />
	city agency to another and in designating the property as a public park, and<br />
	an injunction against the conversion of the property into a public park<br />
	without obtaining the Charter-mandated approvals.</span></font></li>
<p>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">For further information,<br />
please contact Henry Miller or Jessie duPont at Goodman Media: (212) 576-2700.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">

</p>
<p></p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The city&#039;s plan to build a park on the property of the upscale apartment building One Sutton Place South just hit a snag.</p>
<p>
Sutton Place South Corporation, the owner of the co-op at 57th Street along the East River that&#039;s included C.Z. Guest, Patricia Kennedy Lawford and Sigourney Weaver as residents, has filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court to prevent the city from building a park on land that belongs to the building. The lawsuit was filed after the Department of Transportation alerted the building on May 31 of its plans to start construction at the end of June.
</p>
<p>
According to a press release, the 1925 deed for One Sutton Place South states that the eastern boundary of the property is the &quot;high water line&quot; of the East River. An agreement between the city and the building in 1939 allowed the city to construct a part of the East River Drive on the building&#039;s property, above the high water line. However, according to the release, this agreement did not affect ownership of the property, and both agreed that the boundary between the building&#039;s property and the city&#039;s riverbed depends upon the location of the &quot;high water line.&quot;
</p>
<p>
The lawsuit asks the court to establish the location of the high water line as well as issue a permanent injunction against the city and the state from trespassing on the building&#039;s property.
</p>
<p>
The full press release is below.
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center" align="center">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold">ONE SUTTON PLACE SOUTH</span></font></strong><strong><span style="font-weight: bold"> </span></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center" align="center">
<br />
<strong><span style="font-weight: bold">SEEKS COURT INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE CITY OF NEW YORK FROM TAKING ITS<br />
PROPERTY ILLEGALLY</span></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center" align="center">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold"> </span></font></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center" align="center">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold">The City<br />
Proposes To Build A Park On Property It Does Not Own</span></font></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p>
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold">New<br />
York, NY – June 18, 2007</span></font></strong> – Sutton Place South<br />
Corporation, the owner of One Sutton Place South, announced today that it has<br />
filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan seeking an<br />
injunction to prevent the City of New York – and the State of New York,<br />
on the City’s behalf – from taking waterfront property that belongs<br />
to the building for a City park. The City does not own the property, has never<br />
acquired the property and has not taken the legally mandated steps necessary to<br />
develop a park at this location. The building has researched its rights<br />
meticulously and is confident that they will be recognized by the Court<strong><span style="font-weight: bold">.</span></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">One<br />
Sutton Place South</span></font> is located<br />
between 56<sup>th</sup> and 57<sup>th</sup> Streets on the east side of Sutton Place. The<br />
building looks out over the East River with a<br />
waterfront lawn that sits, in part, on top of a roof deck over the FDR Drive. It is<br />
the right to the use of a portion of the lawn that is in dispute.
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">Efforts to reach an<br />
amicable resolution to the dispute have failed, and the New York State<br />
Department of Transportation (acting in cooperation with the City’s Parks<br />
Department) advised the building on May 31 that it intends to commence the<br />
process of converting the building’s backyard garden into a park by the<br />
end of June.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold"> </span></font></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black;font-weight: bold">The Building’s Property Extends to the “High Water<br />
Line” of the East River</span></font></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black">The<br />
building&#039;s deed to its property (dating from 1925) provides that the eastern<br />
boundary is the &quot;high water line&quot; of the East<br />
River. In 1939, the City and the building entered into a<br />
written agreement that enabled the City to build a portion of the East River Drive on<br />
the building’s property, above the high water line; the balance of the<br />
roadway extends onto piers sunk into the riverbed. The 1939 agreement did not<br />
affect ownership of the property. Rather, the building granted the City a<br />
permanent easement, below street level, for purposes of the roadway only. The<br />
building and the City acknowledged in 1939 that the boundary between the<br />
building’s property and the City’s riverbed depends upon the<br />
location of the “high water line.”</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black">However,<br />
there is nothing in the 1939 agreement – or in any subsequent agreement<br />
entered into by the parties – which identifies the now-disputed location<br />
of the “high water line.” That line is at the heart of the dispute<br />
over where – if anywhere – the proposed park could rightly be<br />
built, because the only place it could legally be built is below the high water<br />
line.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black">Significantly,<br />
photographs taken by the City during construction of the Drive in 1939 and the<br />
City’s own construction drawing for the Drive place the “high water<br />
line” substantially farther east than where the City now contends it is<br />
located. The City has sited its proposed park in reliance on its contention<br />
that the “high water line” can be derived from a map created almost<br />
two-hundred years ago. Based upon the building’s evidence, a large<br />
portion of the City’s proposed park sits squarely on the building’s<br />
private property.  </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black">The<br />
building’s lawsuit asks the Court to hold that the building’s<br />
evidence establishes the location of the “high water line.” To<br />
preserve the <em><span style="font-style: italic">status quo</span></em> while the<br />
Court weighs the parties’ proof, the building also seeks a temporary<br />
restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing the City and the State<br />
from entering onto the disputed property pending determination of the case.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt;color: black"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">As part of the 1939<br />
agreement, the building agreed to limit to $1.00 the amount of compensation it<br />
was to be paid by the City for the permanent easement the City acquired. In<br />
return, the building was given the right to use the entire roof deck (including<br />
both the portion it owned <em><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></em> the<br />
portion situated east of the “high water line” of the East River) for 50 years at a rental of $1.00 per year.<br />
(The 50-year lease was the longest term then permitted by law for the lease of<br />
that sort of City-owned property.) </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">The lease expired in<br />
1990. The building and the City had several discussions about extending the<br />
lease, both in the years prior to its expiration and since, but final<br />
arrangements were never agreed upon. Although the lease has expired, the<br />
building still retains all of its ownership rights in its land.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">In 1995, without<br />
following the land use review procedures mandated by the City Charter, the City<br />
purported to transfer jurisdiction over the property from what was then the<br />
Department of Docks to the Parks Department. Although its ownership rights in<br />
– and even its jurisdiction over – the disputed property are<br />
subject to considerable doubt, the Parks Department is now taking steps to<br />
convert almost all of the roof deck into a park, again without following the<br />
legal procedures required by the Charter for the “mapping” of city<br />
parks.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<strong><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;font-weight: bold">The<br />
Building’s Legal Claims</span></font></strong>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">In its complaint filed<br />
today, the building seeks, among other relief:</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in">
	</p>
<li><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">A declaratory<br />
	judgment by the court, determining the eastern boundary of its property by<br />
	fixing the “high water line” of the East River between 56th<br />
	and 57th Streets;</span></font></li>
<p>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.25in;text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in">
	</p>
<li><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">A permanent<br />
	injunction against the City and the State, preventing them from<br />
	trespassing on the building’s private property; and</span></font></li>
<p>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.25in;text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in">
	</p>
<li><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">A declaration<br />
	that the City violated the land use review procedures mandated by the City<br />
	Charter in transferring jurisdiction over the disputed property from one<br />
	city agency to another and in designating the property as a public park, and<br />
	an injunction against the conversion of the property into a public park<br />
	without obtaining the Charter-mandated approvals.</span></font></li>
<p>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> </span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify">
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt">For further information,<br />
please contact Henry Miller or Jessie duPont at Goodman Media: (212) 576-2700.</span></font>
</p>
<p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">

</p>
<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2007/06/one-sutton-place-south-sues-city-over-new-park/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
