Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
In the Matter of the Application of
BAYCHESTER RETAIL III LLC,
Petitioner, Index No. 157596/2017
For a Judgment Under Article 78 of the Civil Practice
Law and Rules,
- against -
MARGERY PERLMUTTER, CHAIR, SHAMPA
and DARA OTTLEY-
CHANDA, VICE-CHAIR,
BROWN, COMMISSIONER, constituting THE
BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK,
Respondents.
PETITIONER BAYCHESTER RETAIL III LLC'S REPLY
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND STAY
AKERMAN LLP
666 Fifth Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10103
Tel: (212) 880-3800
Fax: (212) 880-8965
Attorneys for Petitioner
Baychester Retail IH LLC
Of Counsel:
RICHARD G. LELAND
BENJAMIN R. JOELSON
1 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018
TABLEOFCONTENTS
TABLE OF i
CONTENTS.................................................................................................................
~~
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................ii
..........................................................................................................
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1
....................................................................................................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4
ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................
I. THE BSA OVERSTATES BAYCHESTER'S 4
BURDEN.................................................
.................................................
II. THE BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES FAVORS BAYCHESTER..............................
..............................
5
III.BAYCHESTER WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY IF A STAY IS NOT
IMPOSED...........................................................................................................................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7
A. That the Second BSA Appeal is Currently Pending is Irrelevant.................................
7
B. That an Article 78 Proceeding May be Filed Does Not Negate the Existence of
Irreparable Harm.........................................................................................................
10
C. Money Damages Constitute Irreparable 11
Harm...........................................................
...........................................................
D. Baychester did Not Delay in Seeking a 12
Stay..............................................................
..............................................................
IV. BAYCHESTER IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS....................................
13
A. Baychester is Not Required to Exhaust Administrative Remedies or Obtain a
Final Determination....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
13
B. Baychester States a Cause of Action for a Writ of Prohibition..................................
16
..................................
C. Baychester Does Not Seek a Writ of 22
Mandamus........................................................
D. Baychester States a Cause of Action for Mandamus to Compel................................
23
................................
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 25
.
1
2 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Baychester Retail III LLC v. Perlmutter et al.,
Index No. 157091/2016 19
.......................................................................................................6,
Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew v. Barwick,
67 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 510 1986 ..............................................................................................................15
Civil Service Emp. Ass'n v. Helsby,
31 A.D.2d 325 (3d Dep't 1969), aff'd 24 N.Y.2d 993 (1969).................................................14
.................................................14
DeLury v. City of New York,
48 A.D.2d 595 (1st Dep't 1975)..............................................................................................11
..............................................................................................11
Dineen v. Borghard,
100 A.D.2d 547 (2d Dep't 1984).............................................................................................16
.............................................................................................16
Fischer v. Deitsch,
168 A.D.2d 599 (2d Dep't 1990).............................................................................................11
.............................................................................................11
Friends Acad. v. Superintendent of the Div. of Bldg., Town of Oyster Bay,
134 A.D.2d 497 (2d Dep't 1987).............................................................................................14
.............................................................................................14
Garzilli v. Mills,
250 A.D.2d 131 (3d Dep't 1998).............................................................................................17
.............................................................................................17
Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Moore,
52 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 88 1981 ................................................................................................................14
Hart v. City of New York,
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 30034(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 10
2017)..................................................9,
Kent Ave. Block Ass'n v. New York City Bd. of Standards and Appeals,
280 A.D.2d 423 (1st Dep't 2001)............................................................................................20
............................................................................................20
Klostermann v. Cuomo,
61 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 525 1984 ..............................................................................................................24
Knight v. Amelkin,
68 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 975 (1986)..............................................................................................................20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La Rocca v. Lane,
37 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 575 (1975)..............................................................................................................17
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..
11
3 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018
Lee v. Cnty. Ct. of Erie Cnty.,
27 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 432 (1971)..............................................................................................................17
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. New York State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation,
87 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 136 15
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1995)........................................................................................................13,
Louzoun v. Deutsch,
152 A.D.2d 657 (2d Dep't 22
.......................................................................................21,
1989).......................................................................................21,
Matter of Essex Cnty. v. Zagata,
91 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 447 (1998)..............................................................................................................15
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matter of Murray v. Scully,
170 A.D.2d 829 (3d Dep't 1991).............................................................................................15
.............................................................................................15
Lawyers'
Matter of New York Cnty. Ass'n v. Bloomberg,
19 N.Y.3d
~ ~ 712 (2012)..............................................................................................................16
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matter of Riker v. Bd. of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York,
225 A.D. 570 (1st Dep't ................................................................................................21
1929)................................................................................................21
McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel v. Nolan & Co.,
114 A.D.2d 165 (2d Dep't ...............................................................................................4
1986)...............................................................................................4
Melvin v. Union Coll.,
195 A.D.2d 447 (2d Dep't 1993)...............................................................................................4
...............................................................................................4
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck Bd. of Appeals,
293 A.D.2d 679 (2d Dep't 2002).............................................................................................20
.............................................................................................20
Moody v. Filipowski,
146 A.D.2d 675 (2d Dep't 10
.........................................................................................5,
1989).........................................................................................5,
New York Civil Liberties Union v. State of New York,
4 N.Y.3d
~ ~ 175 (2005)................................................................................................................24
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pierne v. Valentine,
291 N.Y.
~ ~ 333 (1943)................................................................................................................10
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Premo v. Breslin,
89 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 995 (1997)..............................................................................................................17
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rush v. Mordue,
68 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 348 (1986)..............................................................................................................16
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sasso v. Osgood,
86 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 374 (1995)..............................................................................................................20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
111
4 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018
Schneider v. Chandler,
16 CiV. 6560 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 10
...................................................................9,
2016)...................................................................9,
Spellman Food Services, Inc. v. Partrick,
90 A.D.2d 791 (2d Dep't 1982).................................................................................................9
.................................................................................................9
SportsChannel Am. Assoc. v. Nat. Hockey League,
186 A.D.2d 417 (1st Dep't ............................................................................................11
1992)............................................................................................11
Terrell v. Terrell,
279 A.D.2d 301 (1st Dep't 2001)..............................................................................................4
..............................................................................................4
Watergate H Apartments v. Buffalo Sewer Auth.,
46 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 52 (1978)................................................................................................................14
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wolfe v. Burke,
56 N.Y.
~ ~ 115 (1874)....................................................................................................................9
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ying Fung Moy v. Hohi Umeki,
10 A.D.3d 604 (2d Dep't .................................................................................................4
2004).................................................................................................4
Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Rochester Pure Waters Dist.,
37 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 371 (1975)..............................................................................................................15
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rules
BSA Rule of Practice and Procedure § 23
1-12.6...........................................................................1,
CPLR § 25
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6213..............................................................................................................................1,
CPLR § 25
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6301..............................................................................................................................1,
CPLR § 7801..................................................................................................................................15
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CPLR § 20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7803....................................................................................................................6,
9, 16,
CPLR § 4, 6, 10, 25
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7805................................................................................................................1,
Other Authorities
2016 Office of Administrative Trials and Appeals Annual Report...............................................22
...............................................22
Zoning Board of Appeals, James A. Coon Local Government Technical Series,
Division of Local Government Services, Published November 2005,
Reprinted 2015.........................................................................................................................21
.........................................................................................................................21
.
1V
5 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018
Baychester¹
respectfully submits this reply memorandum of law in further support of its
motion brought by order to show cause seeking an order, pursuant to CPLR §§ 6301, 6213 and
7805, (1) staying the BSA Proceedings until this Court rules on Baychester's Petition, and (2)
restraining and enjoining the BSA from deciding, determining, voting or otherwise ruling on
Baychester's appeal currently pending in the BSA Proceedings until this Court rules on
Baychester's Petition.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In this Article 78 proceeding, Baychester seeks an order prohibiting the BSA from
proceeding without or in excess of itsjurisdiction by retroactively reversing or modifying the
BSA Resolution without following the requirements of NYC Charter § 666(8) and BSA Rule §
1-12.6. The BSA was intending to do just that at a public hearing scheduled for December 12,
2017. Instead of voting on Baychester's Second BSA Appeal on December 12, 2017, however,
the BSA, without providing Baychester any advance notice, opened itspreviously closed hearing
and requested supplemental submissions from Baychester and the DOB. Those written
submissions will be completed by January 31, 2018, and the BSA is now scheduled to hold a
further hearing on Baychester's Second BSA Appeal on February 27, 2018, at which time the
BSA would likely vote on the appeal. Therefore, February 27, 2018 is now the date that the
BSA will proceed without or in excess of itsjurisdiction.
As Baychester demonstrated in itsmoving papers, Baychester requires a stay of the BSA
Proceedings to prevent the BSA from engaging in the exact conduct that Baychester sought to
prevent by commencing this prohibition proceeding in August 2017. The BSA opposes a stay on
1 not herein shall them in
Capitalized terms defined have the meaning ascribed to Baychester's
Memorandum of Law in Support of Order to Show Cause for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay, filedon
Memo" Opp."
December 6, 2017 ("Baychester OSC Memo") (NYSCEF Doc. No. 48). "BSA OSC refersto the BSA's
Memorandum ofLaw in Support of Opposition toMotion for a Preliminary Injunction, filedon December 22, 2017
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 53).
I
6 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018
three grounds, none of which is apposite.
First, the BSA argues that the equities weigh in its favor because (1) ifa stay is granted,
other BSA applicants will apparently flood the courthouse for similar relief, and (2) the BSA has
a general interest in ensuring the integrity, efficiency and open public dialogue of its review
process. These vague, general and unsupported purported interests do not shift the equities in the
BSA's favor. In fact, the purported fear of a flooding of the courthouse is simply wrong. The
reality is that the BSA fails to cite a single identifiable reason how it isharmed by a stay of the
BSA Proceedings, or provide any actual reason why itneeds to render a decision on the Second
BSA Appeal at this time.
Second, the BSA argues that Baychester cannot demonstrate irreparable harm because (1)
Baychester does not know whether itwill be aggrieved by the final determination, (2) money
damages do not constitute irreparable harm, and (3) Baychester's purported delay in seeking a
stay shows the absence of any irreparable harm. Each of those arguments fails because (1) the
Resolution,2
BSA has made itcrystal clear that it will, in fact, reverse or modify the BSA Resolution, (2)
Baychester suffers greatly by being required to wait for the BSA to issue itsfinal determination,
(3) money damages are irreparable here because Baychester can never be compensated, and (4)
Baychester did not delay in seeking a stay at all. In fact, the only reason that Baychester even
needed to seek a stay in the first place is because the BSA's counsel requested a two-month
adjournment of the return date of the Petition.
Third, the BSA argues that Baychester is not likely to succeed on the merits because (1)
Baychester has not exhausted administrative remedies and this dispute is not yet ripe, (2)
Baychester has an alternative remedy (i.e.,the ability to file an Article 78 proceeding after the
2 if BSA not or BSA then a of BSA
Moreover, the does intendto reverse modify the Resolution, stay the
Proceedings causes itno harm.
7 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018
determination),3
BSA's final and (3) the BSA is not a quasi-judicial body (and therefore
prohibition is not available). As discussed below, the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and ripeness simply do not apply to prohibition actions, and an Article 78 proceeding is
certainly not an adequate alternative remedy (and, even if itwas an adequate alternative remedy,
prohibition is stillavailable under the law). the BSA - when as an appellate
Further, acting body
an interpretation of the Resolution and bound its prior precedent - is a
rendering Zoning by
quasi-judicial body.
At bottom, the BSA fails to recognize that the only issue to be decided on this application
is whether the BSA Proceedings should be stayed pending a decision on the Petition. The issue
now is not whether this Court should ultimately grant prohibition, or whether the BSA should or
should not grant Baychester's Second BSA Appeal. In other words, this Court is not asked to
decide the merits of this proceeding upon this application for a stay. The purpose of the stay is
merely to preserve the status quo until a decision is reached on the merits.
In sum, there is no dispute that preventing the BSA from ruling on the Second BSA
Appeal causes the BSA absolutely no hardship. There is also no dispute that a stay of the BSA
Proceedings is necessary to preserve the status quo. Indeed, the entire purpose of this
- which was commenced in August 2017 - was to prevent the BSA from
proceeding unlawfully
reversing or modifying the BSA Resolution. Should this Court deny the requested stay, the BSA
will do exactly that prior to the time that the Petition is heard, rendering this proceeding moot
before Baychester's claims are adjudicated.
3 that Court
Thus, once again, the BSA's strategyis to avoid the merits entirely and argue, instead, the
should ignore the BSA's imminent wrongful conduct and require Baychester to wait untilthe BSA officially
exceeds its jurisdiction
before seeking any relief.
8 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018
ARGUMENT
I. THE BSA OVERSTATES BAYCHESTER'S BURDEN
remedy"
The BSA attempts to convince this Court that obtaining the "drastic of a
preliminary injunction is some insurmountable hurdle. BSA OSC Opp., at 7 ("The rights of the
party seeking such relief must be certain as to the law and the facts ..."); id. ("... preliminary
injunctive relief should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the movant's entitlement to
relief'
such relief"). That is not true.
The Appellate Division has made clear that evidence demonstrating a likelihood of
success on the merits need not be conclusive and that a prima facie showing of a right to relief is
sufficient. Actual proof of the case should be left to further court proceedings. Terrell v. Terrell,
279 A.D.2d 301, 303 (1st Dep't 2001); McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel v. Nolan & Co., 114 A.D.2d
165, 172-73 (2d Dep't 1986).
Consistent with that standard, a court is not precluded from exercising its discretion in
granting an injunction simply because there are facts in dispute. Ying Fung Moy v. Hohi Umeki,
10 A.D.3d 604, 605 (2d Dep't 2004). "[T]he existence of a factual dispute will not bar the
imposition of a preliminary injunction if itis necessary to preserve the status quo and the party to
issuance."
be enjoined will suffer no great hardship as a result of its Melvin v. Union Coll., 195
A.D.2d 447, 448 (2d Dep't 1993) (granting stay pursuant to CPLR § 7805 even though there was
a clear factual dispute as to whether the respondent university conformed to the disciplinary
guidelines as set forth in the student handbook). See also Terrell, 279 A.D.2d at 304 (finding that
trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a preliminary injunction to maintain the status
quo during the pendency of the action based upon a finding that a question of fact existed).
Thus, contrary to the BSA's suggestion, Baychester need not prove that it will, in fact,
prevail in this proceeding in order to obtain a stay (although Baychester has made such showing).
9 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018
See Moody v. Filipowski, 146 A.D.2d 675, 678 (2d Dep't 1989). The purpose of the interlocutory
relief sought is to preserve the status quo until a decision is reached on the merits. See id.
II. THE BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES FAVORS BAYCHESTER
BSA"
Although the BSA states that "the equities tip decidedly in favor of the (BSA OSC
Opp., at 11), the BSA fails to cite a single identifiable reason how it isharmed by a stay of the
BSA Proceedings. Nor does the BSA provide a single reason why it needs to render a decision
on the Second BSA Appeal at this time. In fact, the BSA does not even attempt to dispute that,
as demonstrated in Section III of the Baychester OSC Memo (at 11-13), Baychester will be
harmed if thisCourt does not grant the requested stay of the BSA Proceedings.
Instead, conceding that the BSA suffers no identifiable harm from a stay and has no need
to rule on the Second BSA Appeal at this time, the BSA is relegated to arguing that there is some
vague, general public interest in denying a stay: "a decision by this Court to prohibit the BSA
from acting on a pending application could signal to other BSA applicants that they may run to
favor."
court whenever they believe the BSA does not intend to rule in their BSA OSC Opp., at
11. The BSA claims that "[t]his is contrary to the Court of Appeals jurisprudence on ripeness and
remedies." reasons.4
exhaustion of administrative Id. The BSA's flawed argument fails for four reasons.
as demonstrated in Section IV.A below and in the Baychester Opp. Memo (at 23-
First,
25), the law is clear that the doctrines of finality and exhaustion of administrative remedies do
not apply to Article 78 proceedings in the nature of prohibition or mandamus to compel.
Therefore, Baychester need not exhaust administrative remedies or receive a final determination
4 statement that"[w]hat petitioner herein for Court in favor
The BSA's seeks is this to rule its before the
determination"
BSA has even issueda final (BSA OSC Opp., at 12) iscompletely wrong. Baychester is not asking
this Court to direct the BSA how torule on the Second BSA Appeal or seeking to compel the BSA to rule in a
particularmanner. Rather, Baychester merely seeks an order from thisCourt determining that theBSA (1) does not
have jurisdictionto reverse or modify the BSA Resolution, and (2)must apply to Baychester's Second BSA Appeal
the standards created in theBSA Resolution. The BSA retains itsauthority todecide the Second BSA Appeal, but
must do so consistentwith the jurisdictionand power ithas been granted by theNYC Charter and BSA Rules.
10 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSC
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of BAYCHESTER RETAIL III LLC, Petitioner, Index No. 157596/2017 For a Judgment Under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, - against - MARGERY PERLMUTTER, CHAIR, SHAMPA and DARA OTTLEY- CHANDA, VICE-CHAIR, BROWN, COMMISSIONER, constituting THE BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents. PETITIONER BAYCHESTER RETAIL III LLC'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND STAY AKERMAN LLP 666 Fifth Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10103 Tel: (212) 880-3800 Fax: (212) 880-8965 Attorneys for Petitioner Baychester Retail IH LLC Of Counsel: RICHARD G. LELAND BENJAMIN R. JOELSON 1 of 31 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018 TABLEOFCONTENTS TABLE OF i CONTENTS................................................................................................................. ~~ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................ii .......................................................................................................... PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 .................................................................................................... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4 ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. I. THE BSA OVERSTATES BAYCHESTER'S 4 BURDEN................................................. ................................................. II. THE BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES FAVORS BAYCHESTER.............................. .............................. 5 III.BAYCHESTER WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY IF A STAY IS NOT IMPOSED........................................................................................................................... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7 A. That the Second BSA Appeal is Currently Pending is Irrelevant................................. 7 B. That an Article 78 Proceeding May be Filed Does Not Negate the Existence of Irreparable Harm......................................................................................................... 10 C. Money Damages Constitute Irreparable 11 Harm........................................................... ........................................................... D. Baychester did Not Delay in Seeking a 12 Stay.............................................................. .............................................................. IV. BAYCHESTER IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS.................................... 13 A. Baychester is Not Required to Exhaust Administrative Remedies or Obtain a Final Determination.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... 13 B. Baychester States a Cause of Action for a Writ of Prohibition.................................. 16 .................................. C. Baychester Does Not Seek a Writ of 22 Mandamus........................................................ D. Baychester States a Cause of Action for Mandamus to Compel................................ 23 ................................ CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 25 . 1 2 of 31 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Baychester Retail III LLC v. Perlmutter et al., Index No. 157091/2016 19 .......................................................................................................6, Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew v. Barwick, 67 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 510 1986 ..............................................................................................................15 Civil Service Emp. Ass'n v. Helsby, 31 A.D.2d 325 (3d Dep't 1969), aff'd 24 N.Y.2d 993 (1969).................................................14 .................................................14 DeLury v. City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 595 (1st Dep't 1975)..............................................................................................11 ..............................................................................................11 Dineen v. Borghard, 100 A.D.2d 547 (2d Dep't 1984).............................................................................................16 .............................................................................................16 Fischer v. Deitsch, 168 A.D.2d 599 (2d Dep't 1990).............................................................................................11 .............................................................................................11 Friends Acad. v. Superintendent of the Div. of Bldg., Town of Oyster Bay, 134 A.D.2d 497 (2d Dep't 1987).............................................................................................14 .............................................................................................14 Garzilli v. Mills, 250 A.D.2d 131 (3d Dep't 1998).............................................................................................17 .............................................................................................17 Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Moore, 52 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 88 1981 ................................................................................................................14 Hart v. City of New York, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 30034(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 10 2017)..................................................9, Kent Ave. Block Ass'n v. New York City Bd. of Standards and Appeals, 280 A.D.2d 423 (1st Dep't 2001)............................................................................................20 ............................................................................................20 Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 525 1984 ..............................................................................................................24 Knight v. Amelkin, 68 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 975 (1986)..............................................................................................................20 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ La Rocca v. Lane, 37 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 575 (1975)..............................................................................................................17 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. 11 3 of 31 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018 Lee v. Cnty. Ct. of Erie Cnty., 27 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 432 (1971)..............................................................................................................17 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. New York State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 87 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 136 15 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (1995)........................................................................................................13, Louzoun v. Deutsch, 152 A.D.2d 657 (2d Dep't 22 .......................................................................................21, 1989).......................................................................................21, Matter of Essex Cnty. v. Zagata, 91 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 447 (1998)..............................................................................................................15 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Matter of Murray v. Scully, 170 A.D.2d 829 (3d Dep't 1991).............................................................................................15 .............................................................................................15 Lawyers' Matter of New York Cnty. Ass'n v. Bloomberg, 19 N.Y.3d ~ ~ 712 (2012)..............................................................................................................16 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Matter of Riker v. Bd. of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, 225 A.D. 570 (1st Dep't ................................................................................................21 1929)................................................................................................21 McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel v. Nolan & Co., 114 A.D.2d 165 (2d Dep't ...............................................................................................4 1986)...............................................................................................4 Melvin v. Union Coll., 195 A.D.2d 447 (2d Dep't 1993)...............................................................................................4 ...............................................................................................4 Mobil Oil Corp. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck Bd. of Appeals, 293 A.D.2d 679 (2d Dep't 2002).............................................................................................20 .............................................................................................20 Moody v. Filipowski, 146 A.D.2d 675 (2d Dep't 10 .........................................................................................5, 1989).........................................................................................5, New York Civil Liberties Union v. State of New York, 4 N.Y.3d ~ ~ 175 (2005)................................................................................................................24 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pierne v. Valentine, 291 N.Y. ~ ~ 333 (1943)................................................................................................................10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Premo v. Breslin, 89 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 995 (1997)..............................................................................................................17 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 348 (1986)..............................................................................................................16 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 374 (1995)..............................................................................................................20 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ... 111 4 of 31 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018 Schneider v. Chandler, 16 CiV. 6560 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 10 ...................................................................9, 2016)...................................................................9, Spellman Food Services, Inc. v. Partrick, 90 A.D.2d 791 (2d Dep't 1982).................................................................................................9 .................................................................................................9 SportsChannel Am. Assoc. v. Nat. Hockey League, 186 A.D.2d 417 (1st Dep't ............................................................................................11 1992)............................................................................................11 Terrell v. Terrell, 279 A.D.2d 301 (1st Dep't 2001)..............................................................................................4 ..............................................................................................4 Watergate H Apartments v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 52 (1978)................................................................................................................14 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wolfe v. Burke, 56 N.Y. ~ ~ 115 (1874)....................................................................................................................9 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ying Fung Moy v. Hohi Umeki, 10 A.D.3d 604 (2d Dep't .................................................................................................4 2004).................................................................................................4 Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 371 (1975)..............................................................................................................15 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rules BSA Rule of Practice and Procedure § 23 1-12.6...........................................................................1, CPLR § 25 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6213..............................................................................................................................1, CPLR § 25 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6301..............................................................................................................................1, CPLR § 7801..................................................................................................................................15 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CPLR § 20 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7803....................................................................................................................6, 9, 16, CPLR § 4, 6, 10, 25 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7805................................................................................................................1, Other Authorities 2016 Office of Administrative Trials and Appeals Annual Report...............................................22 ...............................................22 Zoning Board of Appeals, James A. Coon Local Government Technical Series, Division of Local Government Services, Published November 2005, Reprinted 2015.........................................................................................................................21 .........................................................................................................................21 . 1V 5 of 31 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018 Baychester¹ respectfully submits this reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion brought by order to show cause seeking an order, pursuant to CPLR §§ 6301, 6213 and 7805, (1) staying the BSA Proceedings until this Court rules on Baychester's Petition, and (2) restraining and enjoining the BSA from deciding, determining, voting or otherwise ruling on Baychester's appeal currently pending in the BSA Proceedings until this Court rules on Baychester's Petition. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In this Article 78 proceeding, Baychester seeks an order prohibiting the BSA from proceeding without or in excess of itsjurisdiction by retroactively reversing or modifying the BSA Resolution without following the requirements of NYC Charter § 666(8) and BSA Rule § 1-12.6. The BSA was intending to do just that at a public hearing scheduled for December 12, 2017. Instead of voting on Baychester's Second BSA Appeal on December 12, 2017, however, the BSA, without providing Baychester any advance notice, opened itspreviously closed hearing and requested supplemental submissions from Baychester and the DOB. Those written submissions will be completed by January 31, 2018, and the BSA is now scheduled to hold a further hearing on Baychester's Second BSA Appeal on February 27, 2018, at which time the BSA would likely vote on the appeal. Therefore, February 27, 2018 is now the date that the BSA will proceed without or in excess of itsjurisdiction. As Baychester demonstrated in itsmoving papers, Baychester requires a stay of the BSA Proceedings to prevent the BSA from engaging in the exact conduct that Baychester sought to prevent by commencing this prohibition proceeding in August 2017. The BSA opposes a stay on 1 not herein shall them in Capitalized terms defined have the meaning ascribed to Baychester's Memorandum of Law in Support of Order to Show Cause for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay, filedon Memo" Opp." December 6, 2017 ("Baychester OSC Memo") (NYSCEF Doc. No. 48). "BSA OSC refersto the BSA's Memorandum ofLaw in Support of Opposition toMotion for a Preliminary Injunction, filedon December 22, 2017 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 53). I 6 of 31 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018 three grounds, none of which is apposite. First, the BSA argues that the equities weigh in its favor because (1) ifa stay is granted, other BSA applicants will apparently flood the courthouse for similar relief, and (2) the BSA has a general interest in ensuring the integrity, efficiency and open public dialogue of its review process. These vague, general and unsupported purported interests do not shift the equities in the BSA's favor. In fact, the purported fear of a flooding of the courthouse is simply wrong. The reality is that the BSA fails to cite a single identifiable reason how it isharmed by a stay of the BSA Proceedings, or provide any actual reason why itneeds to render a decision on the Second BSA Appeal at this time. Second, the BSA argues that Baychester cannot demonstrate irreparable harm because (1) Baychester does not know whether itwill be aggrieved by the final determination, (2) money damages do not constitute irreparable harm, and (3) Baychester's purported delay in seeking a stay shows the absence of any irreparable harm. Each of those arguments fails because (1) the Resolution,2 BSA has made itcrystal clear that it will, in fact, reverse or modify the BSA Resolution, (2) Baychester suffers greatly by being required to wait for the BSA to issue itsfinal determination, (3) money damages are irreparable here because Baychester can never be compensated, and (4) Baychester did not delay in seeking a stay at all. In fact, the only reason that Baychester even needed to seek a stay in the first place is because the BSA's counsel requested a two-month adjournment of the return date of the Petition. Third, the BSA argues that Baychester is not likely to succeed on the merits because (1) Baychester has not exhausted administrative remedies and this dispute is not yet ripe, (2) Baychester has an alternative remedy (i.e.,the ability to file an Article 78 proceeding after the 2 if BSA not or BSA then a of BSA Moreover, the does intendto reverse modify the Resolution, stay the Proceedings causes itno harm. 7 of 31 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018 determination),3 BSA's final and (3) the BSA is not a quasi-judicial body (and therefore prohibition is not available). As discussed below, the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and ripeness simply do not apply to prohibition actions, and an Article 78 proceeding is certainly not an adequate alternative remedy (and, even if itwas an adequate alternative remedy, prohibition is stillavailable under the law). the BSA - when as an appellate Further, acting body an interpretation of the Resolution and bound its prior precedent - is a rendering Zoning by quasi-judicial body. At bottom, the BSA fails to recognize that the only issue to be decided on this application is whether the BSA Proceedings should be stayed pending a decision on the Petition. The issue now is not whether this Court should ultimately grant prohibition, or whether the BSA should or should not grant Baychester's Second BSA Appeal. In other words, this Court is not asked to decide the merits of this proceeding upon this application for a stay. The purpose of the stay is merely to preserve the status quo until a decision is reached on the merits. In sum, there is no dispute that preventing the BSA from ruling on the Second BSA Appeal causes the BSA absolutely no hardship. There is also no dispute that a stay of the BSA Proceedings is necessary to preserve the status quo. Indeed, the entire purpose of this - which was commenced in August 2017 - was to prevent the BSA from proceeding unlawfully reversing or modifying the BSA Resolution. Should this Court deny the requested stay, the BSA will do exactly that prior to the time that the Petition is heard, rendering this proceeding moot before Baychester's claims are adjudicated. 3 that Court Thus, once again, the BSA's strategyis to avoid the merits entirely and argue, instead, the should ignore the BSA's imminent wrongful conduct and require Baychester to wait untilthe BSA officially exceeds its jurisdiction before seeking any relief. 8 of 31 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018 ARGUMENT I. THE BSA OVERSTATES BAYCHESTER'S BURDEN remedy" The BSA attempts to convince this Court that obtaining the "drastic of a preliminary injunction is some insurmountable hurdle. BSA OSC Opp., at 7 ("The rights of the party seeking such relief must be certain as to the law and the facts ..."); id. ("... preliminary injunctive relief should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the movant's entitlement to relief' such relief"). That is not true. The Appellate Division has made clear that evidence demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits need not be conclusive and that a prima facie showing of a right to relief is sufficient. Actual proof of the case should be left to further court proceedings. Terrell v. Terrell, 279 A.D.2d 301, 303 (1st Dep't 2001); McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel v. Nolan & Co., 114 A.D.2d 165, 172-73 (2d Dep't 1986). Consistent with that standard, a court is not precluded from exercising its discretion in granting an injunction simply because there are facts in dispute. Ying Fung Moy v. Hohi Umeki, 10 A.D.3d 604, 605 (2d Dep't 2004). "[T]he existence of a factual dispute will not bar the imposition of a preliminary injunction if itis necessary to preserve the status quo and the party to issuance." be enjoined will suffer no great hardship as a result of its Melvin v. Union Coll., 195 A.D.2d 447, 448 (2d Dep't 1993) (granting stay pursuant to CPLR § 7805 even though there was a clear factual dispute as to whether the respondent university conformed to the disciplinary guidelines as set forth in the student handbook). See also Terrell, 279 A.D.2d at 304 (finding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the action based upon a finding that a question of fact existed). Thus, contrary to the BSA's suggestion, Baychester need not prove that it will, in fact, prevail in this proceeding in order to obtain a stay (although Baychester has made such showing). 9 of 31 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2018 See Moody v. Filipowski, 146 A.D.2d 675, 678 (2d Dep't 1989). The purpose of the interlocutory relief sought is to preserve the status quo until a decision is reached on the merits. See id. II. THE BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES FAVORS BAYCHESTER BSA" Although the BSA states that "the equities tip decidedly in favor of the (BSA OSC Opp., at 11), the BSA fails to cite a single identifiable reason how it isharmed by a stay of the BSA Proceedings. Nor does the BSA provide a single reason why it needs to render a decision on the Second BSA Appeal at this time. In fact, the BSA does not even attempt to dispute that, as demonstrated in Section III of the Baychester OSC Memo (at 11-13), Baychester will be harmed if thisCourt does not grant the requested stay of the BSA Proceedings. Instead, conceding that the BSA suffers no identifiable harm from a stay and has no need to rule on the Second BSA Appeal at this time, the BSA is relegated to arguing that there is some vague, general public interest in denying a stay: "a decision by this Court to prohibit the BSA from acting on a pending application could signal to other BSA applicants that they may run to favor." court whenever they believe the BSA does not intend to rule in their BSA OSC Opp., at 11. The BSA claims that "[t]his is contrary to the Court of Appeals jurisprudence on ripeness and remedies." reasons.4 exhaustion of administrative Id. The BSA's flawed argument fails for four reasons. as demonstrated in Section IV.A below and in the Baychester Opp. Memo (at 23- First, 25), the law is clear that the doctrines of finality and exhaustion of administrative remedies do not apply to Article 78 proceedings in the nature of prohibition or mandamus to compel. Therefore, Baychester need not exhaust administrative remedies or receive a final determination 4 statement that"[w]hat petitioner herein for Court in favor The BSA's seeks is this to rule its before the determination" BSA has even issueda final (BSA OSC Opp., at 12) iscompletely wrong. Baychester is not asking this Court to direct the BSA how torule on the Second BSA Appeal or seeking to compel the BSA to rule in a particularmanner. Rather, Baychester merely seeks an order from thisCourt determining that theBSA (1) does not have jurisdictionto reverse or modify the BSA Resolution, and (2)must apply to Baychester's Second BSA Appeal the standards created in theBSA Resolution. The BSA retains itsauthority todecide the Second BSA Appeal, but must do so consistentwith the jurisdictionand power ithas been granted by theNYC Charter and BSA Rules. 10 of 31 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2018 05:30 PM INDEX NO. 157596/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSC