Matter of Desis Rising Up & Moving v New York City Districting Commn., 2024 NY Slip Op 02866 [227 AD3d 566]
May 23, 2024
Appellate Division, First Department
[*1]
In the Matter of Desis Rising Up and Moving et al., Appellants,
v
New York City Districting Commission et al., Respondents.
Latham & Watkins LLP, New York (Luke Budiardjo of counsel), and Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York (Jerry Vattamala of counsel), for appellants.
Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan Schoepp-Wong of counsel), for respondents.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition to vacate the New York City Districting Commission’s November 1, 2022 certification adopting new City Council districts, and for an order instructing the Districting Committee to amend its 2022 district maps to apply the criteria set forth in New York City Charter § 52 (1) (b) to be consistent with a “Unity Map” prepared by the Unity Map Coalition, combining portions of the Richmond Hill and South Ozone Park neighborhoods, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The construction given New York City Charter § 52 (1) (b) by the Districting Commission, the agency charged with its implementation, is not irrational or unreasonable. We therefore defer to it ( see generally Matter of MSK Realty Interests, LLC v Department of Fin. of the City of N.Y. , 170 AD3d 459 , 460 [1st Dept 2019], appeal dismissed 33 NY3d 1057 [2019]). We are satisfied that the record in this case establishes that the Districting Commission implemented the requirements of New York City Charter § 52. The Districting Commission’s decisions to draw the district lines as it did, and then to certify its plan, were not arbitrary, irrational, or inconsistent with the Charter’s mandate ( see Matter of Brooklyn Hgts. Assn. v Macchiarola , 82 NY2d 101, 106 [1993]). Contrary to petitioners’ contention, we find that the Districting Commission had a rational basis for rejecting the proposed alternative map. In light of the flexibility contemplated by the Charter when executing the redistricting process, the Districting Commission had a rational basis to consider other listed criteria ( id. ). Concur—Webber, J.P., Gesmer, González, Scarpulla, Shulman, JJ..