## Facts

- New York City’s Landmarks Law was amended to allow designation of certain interiors that are “customarily open or accessible to the public” and have special historical, cultural, or aesthetic value.
- Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America owned the Seagram Building in Manhattan.
- The Four Seasons restaurant, located in the building, had a well-known interior designed as a unified modernist composition.
- Teachers requested landmark designation for the building’s exterior and certain public areas (including the lobby and plaza).
- After hearings, the Landmarks Preservation Commission designated the building’s exterior, plaza, lobby, and the Four Seasons restaurant interior as protected landmarks; the interior designation listed multiple design elements as protected “interior architectural features.”
- Teachers challenged the interior designation, arguing (1) a private, high-end restaurant was not “customarily open or accessible to the public,” and (2) the Commission could not regulate movable personal property (e.g., furniture, drapes, decorative objects).

## Issues

1. Whether a restaurant interior may qualify as an “interior landmark” as “customarily open or accessible to the public” under the Landmarks Law.
2. Whether an interior-landmark designation may extend to movable items, or is limited to “interior architectural features” that are part of the realty (fixtures).

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts and upheld the interior-landmark designation of the Four Seasons restaurant.
- The court held that a restaurant open to patrons in the ordinary course of business can be “customarily open or accessible to the public,” even if entry may be conditioned on typical commercial criteria (e.g., reservations, dress, price).
- The court sustained protection of interior elements to the extent they constitute “interior architectural features” integrated into the space as part of the real property (fixtures).
- The court limited the designation’s reach by clarifying the Commission lacks authority to regulate purely movable personal property as such.

## Legal Principles

- “Customarily open or accessible to the public” is satisfied when members of the public may ordinarily enter and experience an interior through customary commercial use; the standard does not require public ownership or unconditional access.
- Commercial establishments may qualify for interior-landmark status notwithstanding selective admission practices common to commerce.
- Interior-landmark regulation extends to real-property components and “interior architectural features” that function as part of the architectural whole; fixture principles supply the boundary between regulated realty and unregulated movable personalty.
- Landmark regulation is treated as a land-use control that limits alterations rather than a governmental appropriation, where the owner retains beneficial use and statutory processes allow for administrative accommodation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld New York City’s authority to designate a restaurant interior as an interior landmark when it is ordinarily accessible to the public as a commercial venue, while confining regulatory control to fixtures and integrated architectural features rather than freestanding movable property.


Matter of Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am. v. City of New York, 82 N.Y.2d 35, 623 N.E.2d 526 (1993)