Battery Alliance v. Battery Park City Authority

The New York State Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to Battery Park City Authority’s (BPCA) approval of the second phase of the Battery Park City Coastal Resiliency Project. The challenge was filed by two nonprofit organizations and two residents of Battery Park City. Completing the project would require temporarily closing parts of Battery City Park to install a floodwall. The court found that BPCA did not violate the State Environmental Quality Review Act because its environmental review was not “arbitrary, capricious, or affected by an error of law.” Rather, it reflected years of engagement with residents, elected officials, community members, and consultants to account for a range of environmental impacts. Additionally, the court found that petitioners failed to provide any empirical data or expert testimony to support their contention that the division of the coastal resiliency strategy into two phases represented impermissible segmentation. The court also determined that the project did not violate the public trust doctrine because the doctrine does not apply to State parkland, and because the project did not constitute an “alienation of land for nonpark purposes.” Finally, the court dismissed the petitioners’ State constitutional claim because the New York Constitution’s Green Amendment does not provide an implied private right of action, and, even if it did, the petitioners failed to establish a violation of the amendment.

Two nonprofit organizations and two residents of Battery Park City in lower Manhattan filed a lawsuit in September 2025 in a New York Supreme Court challenging the Battery Park City Authority’s (BPCA’s) approval of the second phase of the Battery Park City Coastal Resiliency Project. The petition alleged that the Resiliency Project “radically transforms the parks and public spaces of Battery Park City, in order to establish a new flood protection system comprised of flood walls, gates, and drainage infrastructure” to protect residents and businesses from sea level rise and coastal flooding. The petitioners asserted that BPCA violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act, including by improperly segmenting the review of the two phases of the project and by failing to timely complete the first phase of the project with appropriate mitigation measures. The petitioners also alleged that by failing to examine the Resiliency Project’s cumulative impacts, including cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, the BPCA violated the Green Amendment of the New York Constitution. In addition, the petitioners asserted that the BPCA alienated parkland without legislative approval in violation of the public trust doctrine.