Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. v. City of New York

The New York Appellate Division granted New York City defendants’ motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals the Appellate Division’s decision reviving a preemption challenge to the City’s law setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions from existing large buildings (Local Law 97). The Appellate Division ruled in May 2024 that the City defendants failed to show that the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act did not preempt Local Law 97. The Appellate Division certified the question of whether its order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the preemption cause of action and otherwise affirming the trial court’s order was properly made. The Sabin Center filed an amicus brief in support of the motion for leave to appeal. The State of New York also filed an amicus brief in support of the motion, as did a coalition of organizations that including environmental justice groups, American Institute of Architects New York, and New York League of Conservation Voters.

–

–

The New York Appellate Division revived a cause of action asserting that New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) preempts New York City’s Local Law 97, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions from existing large buildings in the city. The court found that the claim invoked field preemption and that the City defendants failed to show that the CLCPA did not preempt the local law. In particular, the appellate court said it could be possible to conclude that the CLCPA savings clause providing that the CLCPA did not “relieve any person … of compliance with other applicable federal, state, or local laws … , including state air and water quality requirements and other requirements for protecting public health or the environment” did not apply to local laws regulating “greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures” such as Local Law 97. The appellate court pointed to a separate CLCPA provision that specifically addresses “greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures,” stating that “[n]othing in this act shall limit the existing authority of a state entity to adopt and implement greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures.” The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of causes of action for violations of the due process clauses of the U.S. and New York constitutions, as well as a facial challenge for vagueness. Regarding the vagueness challenge, the appellate court was not persuaded that Local Law 97 gave enforcement authorities “unfettered discretion in every case.” The appellate court noted that the law made a penalty mandatory if a building exceeded its emissions limit and that while the law allowed a court or administrative tribunal to consider mitigating factors, the factors were “not as vague as the ‘no apparent purpose’ standard” that applies to such claims.

–

–