Law Profs: PPW Lawsuit Unlikely to Succeed

Suing the city has earned the well-connected opponents of the Prospect Park West bike lane a lot of media attention, but ultimately their lawyer, Gibson Dunn’s Jim Walden, will have to show up in court and make his case that the lane was illegal. According to the legal experts we spoke to, that case looks shaky indeed.

“I take this complaint to be largely public relations, with no more law behind it than is minimally necessary to avoid sanctions for frivolity.”

The bike lane opponents are suing under Article 78, the provision of state law which allows judicial review of administrative actions. Their main complaint is that DOT’s decision-making process was inappropriate. They say that DOT’s statistics, which demonstrate that the lane improved safety, weren’t properly presented, and they point to e-mail correspondence and blog comments to imply that DOT was biased. We’ve covered the flaws in the opponents’ main statistical arguments and public process complaints already. In this post we will examine their case in a strictly legal sense.

Under Article 78, the bike lane opponents need to show that DOT acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner when it decided to install the bike lane. That means “that there is little or no support for what they did in the facts,” said Richard Briffault, a Columbia Law School professor and expert in state and local government law. The city only needs to show that it had some reason for installing the lane and followed proper procedure. “That puts a heavy burden on the challenger,” said Briffault.

When I asked Briffault whether the community board’s request for traffic calming or DOT’s stats showing the lane improved safety would be considered reason enough to clear the “arbitrary and capricious” bar, he said they probably would be. “If [the city] can show that there are reasonable arguments that this would advance safety, they’re likely to make it.”

Roderick Hills Jr., an NYU Law School professor with a focus on local government law, agreed that the court will be unlikely to find that DOT’s explanation of why it installed the lane isn’t good enough. “Frankly, getting factual findings overturned on arbitrary and capricious review is almost impossible,” he said. “You just have to have some kind of finding.” In other words, the plaintiffs’ attempt to cast doubt on safety improvements by cherry picking crash and injury data won’t matter in court. Legally, what matters is that DOT has safety statistics in the first place.

In fact, in a strictly legal sense, all of DOT’s factual findings may be completely irrelevant. Briffault said he presumed that DOT has some sort of rulemaking process that it had to document as it installed the bike lane, but Hills said that might not even be true. “So far as I can tell, [DOT Commissioner Janette] Sadik-Khan is not obliged to make any factfindings before she designates a bike lane. At least, the complaint alleges no such legal obligation,” said Hills. If so, the fight over DOT’s statistics and motivations is even more irrelevant legally, as the agency didn’t have an obligation to explain them in the first place. The lawsuit’s allegation about data fudging and DOT having improper contact with bike lane supporters “really is no grounds for overturning her decision,” said Hills.

The overwhelming bulk of the opponents’ lawsuit is dedicated to the argument that DOT made the decision to install the bike lane inappropriately. But they also are asking for review of whether DOT skirted environmental review law. Their argument isn’t that all bike lanes require environmental review — a position whose lack of merit Streetsblog has already covered — but that it requires review because it borders a historic district.

“At first glance – and perhaps second as well – this looks pretty weak,” said Hills. “The NY SEQRA regs specify that installation of ‘traffic control devices’ is a Type II action – meaning that it is presumptively not subject to any EIS obligation.” State law does require environmental review for actions within or next to historic districts, but only for types of action that aren’t listed elsewhere; if installing a bike lane is indeed a Type II action, then that wouldn’t apply. The bike lane opponents, therefore, will have to prove that the lane should in some way not qualify for the general exemption of traffic control devices from environmental review.

“In sum,” concluded Hills, “I take this complaint to be largely public relations, with no more law behind it than is minimally necessary to avoid sanctions for frivolity.”

  • Chris

    I guess it’s a good thing they’re getting pro bono representation huh? Saves them a pretty penny when their lawsuit fails.

  • It makes me really uncomfortable to watch grown men and women throw temper-tantrums, even if they do it under the guise of legal formalities.

  • station44025

    This analysis only reinforces my belief that this bike lane issue is in large part a proxy war in some larger power struggle within the political class in NYC. Democratic incumbents vs. Bloomberg, personal grudges, or some other nonsense. Logic, reason, and democracy were abandoned by the opponents long ago, and this has entered the political twilight zone. Unfortunately, the future of transportation policy in NYC’s future and around the world are on the line, so it can’t be ignored.

  • The way Jim Walden spat out the name “Bloomberg” on Brian Lehrer this morning was quite telling. I never understood why a young guy would want to be on this side of a livable streets issue but now it does seem that, for him, it’s about sticking it to Bloomberg himself.

  • This was great reporting, btw. And comforting for me. Thanks!

  • Charles P.

    Well, having a strong legal case has never been a prerequisite for Walden and the gang at Gibson Dunn, who are fine with just overwhelming the other side with frivolous garbage. I wouldn’t be surprised if their goal was to convince the city that litigation would cost millions more than just removing the bike lane.

    Sorry if this comment earns you a cease-and-desist letter from those sleaseballs…

  • Greg

    Obviously it’s all an attack on the Mayor. Why else would the Times give it so much coverage? They hate the Republican mayor.

    The plaintiff will try to settle out of court. The lawyer doesn’t want to waste actual court time on such a lame case.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

PPW Bike Lane Lawsuit Will Be Decided on the Merits — Bring It On

|
Judge says Prospect Park West bike lane case to proceed. I think the case’s merits speak for themselves. pic.twitter.com/d92runmfZk — Janette Sadik-Khan (@JSadikKhan) March 15, 2016 Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Bert Bunyan ruled yesterday that Prospect Park West bike lane opponents did indeed file suit before the six-month statute of limitations had run out. The […]

PPW Bike Lane Opponents Have PR Firm Spinning For Them

|
Wondering how the members of bike lane opposition group Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes manage to get quoted so much in the papers? It helps when you have a public relations firm working the press for you. Linda Gross of LCG Communications confirmed to Streetsblog that the plaintiffs suing the city, the groups known as […]

NBBL Lawyer Jim Walden on Brian Lehrer This Morning

|
Update 4: Second caller is Michael Freedman-Schnapp from Brad Lander’s office, and the third caller is a mother of three, Megan, who feels safer crossing PPW now that it’s not a three-lane speedway. And that’s it for the callers. Lehrer pops a “pro bono” question. Walden says he took the case pro bono because it’s […]

Opponents Sue City Over Prospect Park West Bike Lane

|
Opponents of the Prospect Park West bike lane have filed a lawsuit against the city in relation to the project, according to the New York City Law Department. The suit, which has been threatened for a month, was filed at the end of the day today in Brooklyn Supreme Court. Download it here. The bulk […]