## Facts

- Lena Russo owned a five-story commercial building at 359 Broadway in Manhattan.
- The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (Commission) identified the building during a neighborhood survey and calendared it for a public hearing as a potential landmark on architectural grounds.
- Before the hearing, the Commission was notified that 359 Broadway had been one of Mathew Brady’s photography studios.
- Brady was widely recognized for his Civil War-era photography and for early contributions to modern photographic practice.
- At the public hearing, numerous witnesses submitted oral and written testimony describing the building’s historical value because of its connection to Brady, including claims that Brady’s photographic techniques developed during his time working at 359 Broadway.
- The record gathered during the designation process also described the building as architecturally unusual for its period, with an extraordinary degree of exterior ornamentation and detail, much of which remained intact.
- Architectural submissions characterized the ornamentation as notable for its era and as reflecting decorative approaches that became more common later.
- During deliberations, some Commission members expressed reservations about designation, but the Commission ultimately designated the building as an individual landmark based on its architecture and its association with Brady.
- Russo commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding (Index No. 14635/91) seeking to vacate the landmark designation, arguing the determination was irrational and unsupported by substantial evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission’s designation of 359 Broadway as a landmark was arbitrary and capricious or irrational under CPLR Article 78.
2. Whether the administrative record contained substantial evidence supporting the finding that the building satisfied the landmarks law criteria based on architectural merit and historical association with Mathew Brady.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court, New York County (Moskowitz, J.) denied Russo’s Article 78 petition and dismissed the proceeding, leaving the landmark designation in place.
- The court concluded that the designation had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, including evidence of Brady’s connection to the building and evidence of unusual architectural ornamentation and preserved exterior features.
- On later appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed, noting that the administrative record showed reasoned decision-making and that the Commission members wrestled with the policy questions raised by designation.

## Legal Principles

- In an Article 78 challenge to a landmark designation, a court does not reweigh the merits of historical or architectural significance; it reviews only whether the agency acted rationally and within lawful bounds.
- A landmark designation will be upheld if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
- Substantial evidence may include testimony and documentation about historical associations (such as use by a significant figure) and architectural characteristics (such as unusual design, ornamentation, and integrity of the exterior).
- Disagreement among commissioners, extended discussion, or expressions of doubt during deliberations do not, by themselves, show that the final determination was arbitrary; they may show careful consideration of competing concerns.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s designation of 359 Broadway as a landmark, finding that the record provided substantial evidence of both architectural significance and historical significance tied to Mathew Brady, and that the Commission’s determination was rational under Article 78 review.


Russo v. Beckelman, No. 14635/91 (1992)