## Facts

- In 1982, Cornell University’s trustees proposed demolishing Stone Hall, a state-owned building on a state-college campus, to construct a new facility.
- State entities approved the demolition plan as part of the state’s higher-education construction program, administered through the State University Construction Fund.
- In 1984, Stone Hall was listed on the state and national historic preservation registers.
- After the register listings, the City of Ithaca Landmark Preservation Commission designated Stone Hall as a local landmark under the City’s historic-preservation ordinance.
- Under Ithaca’s ordinance, a designated local landmark could not be demolished without a demolition permit issued by the local commission.
- The State University Construction Fund refused to seek or obtain the local permit, taking the position that the local ordinance did not control demolition of a state-owned campus building.
- The City of Ithaca and preservation interests commenced an action in Supreme Court seeking injunctive relief to stop demolition until the permit requirement was met.
- Special Term granted relief, holding that the fund was required to obtain a permit from the local commission before Stone Hall could be demolished.
- The state defendants appealed to the Appellate Division, Third Department.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality may enforce its local landmark-preservation ordinance (including a demolition-permit requirement) against state entities seeking to demolish a state-owned building on a state-college campus.
2. Whether the state historic-preservation determination allowing demolition—based on a finding that preservation was not “feasible, prudent or practicable”—was irrational on the administrative record.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the judgment that had required compliance with the City’s local demolition-permit process and had enjoined demolition.
- The court held that the City of Ithaca’s landmark ordinance did not bind the State University Construction Fund with respect to demolition of a state-owned building used for state educational purposes.
- The court also upheld the state preservation approval for demolition, concluding that the determination that preservation was not feasible, prudent, or practicable was not irrational based on the record.

## Legal Principles

- Local governments generally may not regulate the State’s performance of governmental functions, or impose local permitting conditions on state agencies, absent clear legislative authorization.
- General Municipal Law article 5‑K and related local historic-preservation frameworks support municipal regulation of historic resources within local jurisdiction, but do not, without explicit statutory direction, subject state-owned property and state construction programs to local landmark commission control.
- A state historic-preservation determination authorizing impacts to a listed resource may be upheld where the record supports the agency’s conclusion that preservation is not feasible, prudent, or practicable.
- In reviewing a state agency determination in this setting, the court applies a deferential standard and will sustain the decision where the record shows a rational basis, rather than substituting the court’s judgment on the merits of preservation versus demolition.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division held that Ithaca could not use its local landmark ordinance to require a demolition permit for Stone Hall because the building was state-owned and the demolition was part of a state college construction program beyond municipal permitting control. The court further sustained the state’s preservation-related approval for demolition, finding no irrationality in the determination that preserving Stone Hall was not feasible, prudent, or practicable.


Ebert v. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, 119 A.D.2d 62 (1986)