A condemnation proceeding brought pursuant to the Port Development Project Law (L. 1962, ch. 209; Laws of N. J., 1962, ch. 8) was approved in this court in the case of Courtesy Sandwich Shop v. Port of N. Y. Auth. (12 N.Y.2d 379 ). The statute under which the Authority brought this proceeding was found to be constitutional because there was no showing at that time that the Authority was deviating from the authorized purposes mandated by the statute's terms. The appellants in this condemnation proceeding contend that the steps which the Authority has taken to implement the provisions of the statute to bring the trade center into reality deviated from the concept and authorized purposes set out in the statute.
There is no evidence in the record which indicates that the purposes or the provisions under which the Authority was given full discretionary power as to how best carry out the project to its successful fruition are being subverted by the Authority.
The operations and subsequent proposals of the Authority since the decision of the Courtesy case (supra) are consistent with the primary purposes mandated by the legislation under which it has acted.
In the Courtesy case the court had before it a preliminary schedule of space allocations. The schedule indicated that the project was planned so as to satisfy the constitutional interpretation which we assigned to it in accordance with the definition in the statute. That schedule does not differ substantially from the plan before us in this case which sets out the allocation of space in the present planned project.
An analysis of the record points to the single conclusion that the project which is under way under the direction of the Authority is fully authorized by the statute and that the real property being condemned in the present proceedings is being taken for an authorized public purpose. The World Trade tenants will include customs brokers, freight forwarders, carriers, banks, insurers and similar services; customs and other governmental services and offices; World Trade information and promotion services; Commodity Exchange and export-import exhibit and
Special Term properly granted summary judgment on the Authority's motion. Here the answers to interrogatories filed in the earlier action have been made a part of the record before the court. The standards of summary judgment applied to actions should also be applied by the court to proceedings governed by CPLR 409 (subd. [b]). These standards were properly applied by the Judge at Special Term, and, since there are no substantial questions of fact in the case, he correctly granted summary judgment for the Authority on the merits of the legal questions.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
In upholding the constitutionality of chapter 209 of the Laws of 1962, together with concurrent New Jersey legislation (Laws of N. J., 1962, ch. 8), in Courtesy Sandwich Shop v. Port of N. Y. Auth. (12 N.Y.2d 379, 391) this court said: "As to the fears expressed by the respondents that the Port Authority may illegally seize a particular piece of property for an unauthorized nonpublic use, it is sufficient to say that the condemnation procedures prescribed by statute fully protect the respondents and others in like position against any taking for nonpublic purposes in violation of the Port Development Project Law."
Appellants are now here to put that statement to the test. Unless the powers of the Port of New York Authority regarding this project are virtually absolute, so that whatever is done is
Deposition discovery proceedings were commenced in the declaratory judgment suit 25 Broad St. Realty Assoc. v. Port of N. Y. Auth. brought in 1964, but these proceedings were pending and incompleted at the time when the condemnation suit was commenced by the Authority which is now before us. Material areas of information were blocked by objections during the depositions of the Authority's witness, and the Authority contended that declarations on the pertinent issues were privileged and refused disclosure of documents and barred oral testimony by informed Authority personnel bearing upon the issues which appellants seek to try but are precluded from trying by the summary judgment now under review. These circumstances alone demonstrate that appellants are entitled to a trial in order to elicit fully the material facts bearing upon whether these property owners in the project area are being ejected, in violation of the Courtesy Sandwich Shop decision, from nonslum locations which they have occupied for years, without recompense for loss of good will and with the prospect that at least one out of four will be forced permanently out of business (see Martin Anderson, The Federal Bulldozer, p. 69; Kinnard and Malinowski, The Impact
Not only are the property owners affected in the project area, but the affirmative defenses allege, supported by affidavits adequate to warrant denial of summary judgment, that the Authority's contemplated project is a huge real estate development, primarily devoted to the production of revenue which only incidentally will house World Trade functions and that the Authority is unlawfully competing with private enterprise through the utilization of its claimed tax immunities for tenants not engaged in World Trade functions.
The order appealed from should be reversed and petitioner's motion for summary judgment should be denied.
Order affirmed, etc.