DEVELOPER ORDERED TO PAY OVER $60K FOR UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL
After a developer sought permission to remove a tree from a neighboring property (so that it could build a new curb cut and driveway), the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation informed the company that it would first need to pay $60,200 in “restitution value” before a permit could issue.
Months later, because the tree was “destroyed without authorization,” the City demanded that the company pay the delineated fee.
When a special proceeding – pursuant to CPLR Article 78 – was later filed, the developer contended the City didn’t have “jurisdiction” over the tree and thus didn’t have the requisite authority to impose the charge. After the Richmond County Supreme Court sided with the municipality, and the developer’s challenge was dismissed, an appeal ensued.
And on its review of the record, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that under local law – i.e., Administrative Code §§ 18-105 and 18-107 – the Big Apple has jurisdiction over all trees, unless they are under the care of individual owners. Since neither the developer nor the property owner (or any predecessor-in-interest), “planted or … maintained the tree,” the AD2 was of the view the underlying determination was not “arbitrary or capricious,” and affirmed the dismissal.
Was this developer barking up the wrong tree?
# # #
DECISION