## Facts

- A religious, educational, and charitable organization owned a Central Park West parcel improved with two adjacent five-story buildings: its Meeting House (headquarters and gathering space) and a school.
- The buildings shared certain services (e.g., utilities and boiler) but were structurally independent and covered by a single mortgage.
- The Meeting House contained a large auditorium and additional floors for administrative and ceremonial uses (including meetings and weddings).
- The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission designated only the Meeting House a city landmark after investigation and a public hearing.
- The designation subjected the Meeting House to restrictions requiring Commission approval for alteration, reconstruction, or demolition, imposed exterior-maintenance duties at the owner’s expense, and provided for enforcement penalties.
- The organization had explored redeveloping the site (including demolition and high-rise replacement via long-term lease) to generate funds for its programs, though it had not proceeded with redevelopment.
- The organization brought an Article 78 proceeding to annul the designation as arbitrary and capricious, an unconstitutional taking, and an unconstitutional burden on religious exercise.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the organization and annulled the designation; the City officials and Commission appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the landmark designation was supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis, or was arbitrary and capricious.
2. Whether the designation’s restrictions constituted a regulatory taking or confiscatory regulation without just compensation.
3. Whether applying the landmarks law to the Meeting House unconstitutionally burdened the organization’s free exercise of religion.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court and upheld the landmark designation.
- The court held the designation was supported by substantial evidence of the Meeting House’s architectural and historical significance and was rational under the landmarks ordinance.
- The court rejected the takings claim because the designation did not deprive the owner of reasonable use or all economically viable use, even if it foreclosed a more profitable redevelopment.
- The court rejected the free-exercise claim because the landmarks law was neutral and generally applicable and did not directly prevent religious worship or the organization’s ongoing religious and educational activities.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of landmark designations is limited; a court may not reweigh evidence and must uphold an agency determination supported by substantial evidence and a rational basis.
- A structure may qualify as a landmark if it meets statutory criteria for “special character” or “special historical or aesthetic interest or value,” as established through expert and historical evidence.
- Loss of the “highest and best” or most profitable use, without denial of reasonable use, does not establish a regulatory taking.
- Neutral, generally applicable landmark regulations that do not directly prohibit religious practice ordinarily do not violate free-exercise rights merely because they impose incidental economic burdens.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated and sustained the landmark designation of the organization’s Meeting House, holding that the Commission’s determination was rational and supported by substantial evidence and that the resulting restrictions neither effected an unconstitutional taking nor impermissibly burdened religious exercise.


Society for Ethical Culture in the City of New York v. Spatt, 68 A.D.2d 112 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1979)