A community organization (petitioner) commenced an Article 78 proceeding, challenging a June 7, 2016 determination by the respondent Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. (BBPC), “which authorized a private commercial real estate development” (development) “of two parcels at Pier 6 at Brooklyn Bridge Park [the Park].” Other respondents were NYS Urban Development Corporation, doing business as Empire State Development (ESDC) and Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation (BBPDC), a subsidiary of ESDC. Development entities (“A”) (“B”) (“C”) and (“D”) were also respondents. “A” and “B” were awarded the right to develop the site, and all party-respondents were involved in its construction.

The petitioner alleged that respondents:

bypassed legal restrictions, 2) ignored their own procedural guidelines, 3) based their decision on misinformation which BBPC management provided, 4) improperly failed to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), which would have reassessed the financial need for such tall buildings to sustain the Park and the impact on the overcrowded elementary schools…, along with other changed circumstances, 5) ignored a critical mandate to approve development only to the extent needed to support the park, 6) did not obtain the requisite modification to the General Project Plan (GPP), including the addition of permission to construct affordable housing and the addition of three floors of mechanicals on the building on Parcel B, and 7) did not provide the Brooklyn Bridge Park Community Advisory Council (Community Advisory Council) with all the documents and other information it requested.