## Facts

- Sailors’ Snug Harbor, a charitable corporation administering a trust for retired seamen, operated a residential facility on an approximately 80-acre Staten Island tract.
- Several principal buildings on the property, constructed between 1830 and 1880 and used largely as dormitories, were designated as landmarks by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission under the Administrative Code.
- Landmark designation restricted reconstruction, alteration, or demolition without Commission permission.
- The Commission found the buildings had special historical and aesthetic value and constituted a significant Greek Revival architectural group.
- The trustees asserted the buildings’ interiors were no longer suitable for elderly residents, and that replacement with modern structures was necessary to fulfill fiduciary obligations and the trust purpose.
- Sailors’ Snug Harbor brought an Article 78 proceeding to annul the designations, alleging an undue burden and a potential unconstitutional taking.
- Special Term granted the petition and revoked the designations; the Commission appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether landmark restrictions imposed on property held in charitable trust are valid exercises of governmental power for cultural and aesthetic purposes.
2. What standard governs whether landmark designation of charitable-trust property becomes an undue burden that materially interferes with the charitable purpose or constitutes an unconstitutional taking.
3. Whether the record was sufficient for Special Term to annul the Commission’s designation in an Article 78 proceeding.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the order annulling the landmark designations.
- The court held that governmental authority to impose cultural and aesthetic land-use restrictions is generally valid, subject to constitutional limits.
- Because the property was held in charitable trust, the controlling inquiry was whether the restrictions unduly burdened or materially interfered with carrying out the charitable function.
- The court concluded the existing record was inadequate to determine the extent of operational and financial interference.
- The matter was remanded for further factual development on the practical effect of the designation on the trust’s ability to fulfill its purpose.

## Legal Principles

- Landmark preservation and other cultural and aesthetic land-use controls may be a valid exercise of governmental power when imposed within constitutional limits.
- For property held in charitable trust, regulatory restrictions must be evaluated by their effect on performance of the charitable purpose, not solely by ordinary owner-profit metrics.
- Whether restrictions amount to an undue burden or a taking in the charitable-trust setting is fact-dependent and may require evidence of:
  - Costs of maintenance, repair, or adaptation under landmark constraints.
  - Feasibility of alternatives (including rehabilitation or partial preservation).
  - The charity’s financial capacity and operational needs.
  - Whether compliance would materially impair or defeat the charitable mission.
- In an Article 78 challenge to a landmark designation affecting charitable-trust property, a court should not annul the designation without an adequate factual record addressing these impacts.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division reinstated the landmark designations and required further proceedings to determine, on a developed factual record, whether the preservation restrictions unduly burdened the trustees’ ability to provide suitable housing for retired seamen or otherwise rose to the level of a taking.


In re Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor in the City of N.Y. v. Platt, 29 A.D.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1968)