« DDDB Press Release: Appellate Division Overturns ESDC Conflict of Interest Case and Leaves Public Scratching Its Head | Main | E&P on the Times: loan obligation to Forest City Ratner demands more disclosure »

May 30, 2006

Appellate Division rules business as usual in NY State

For you primary-source mavens, here's the link for the NY State Supreme Court Appellate Division's ruling in the case of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn v Empire State Dev. Corp.

Basically, the court found that Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) et al do not have "standing" to bring a case questioning whether or not the Empire State Development Corporation and Forest City Ratner may retain the same lawyer — that right is reserved exclusively for Forest City Ratner. In other words, if DDDB's lawyer started working for the ESDC, then DDDB would have standing to bring a case according to NY State law. [Is this enough proof that we're not Dan Goldstein?]

Our favorite part is the finding that even if the petitioners had standing, there was no conflict between the ESDC and Ratner because they say so:

The motion court also erred in ignoring record evidence that ESDC and/or the developer had duly waived their rights as to potential conflicts of interest...

Oh well, it's business as usual in New York State, where it is perfectly legal for the same lawyer to work for both sides in the "collaborative" relationship between FCRC and the ESDC.

UPDATE: We claimed that Curbed.com had it wrong in its early report on the decision. Apparently, DDDB did appeal the demolitions, since they were going to court anyway over the FCRC appeal. So the following should read:

If you have something interesting to say on the subject, surf on over to Curbed.com's post, but pay no attention to their blurb. Curbed.com's LSAT batting average just hit a new low high when they missed got the point of the ruling, which had nothing also decided in favor of Ratner to do with upholding uphold the Ratner demolitions. Though the Supreme Court proceedings (including the arguments over the demolitions) were described in detail, the Appellate Court's only other task was to rule in the conflict of interest case.

Posted by lumi at May 30, 2006 10:08 PM