The DNAinfo archives brought to you by WNYC.
Read the press release here.

Judge Continues to Block Some Parts of Gansevoort Street Redevelopment

 60-74 Gansevoort Street, the two buildings in the project being opposed by locals.
60-74 Gansevoort Street, the two buildings in the project being opposed by locals.
View Full Caption
Capalino + Company

CIVIC CENTER — A major redevelopment of Gansevoort Street remained partially blocked by a State Supreme Court judge on Thursday. 

Judge Joan Lobis heard arguments from lawyers for the city, the developers of the project, and its opponents as part of an Article 78 lawsuit brought by locals who believe the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission wrongly approved the project.

The project, from developers William Gottlieb Real Estate and Aurora Capital Associates, involves redeveloping the entire south side of Gansevoort Street from Ninth Avenue to Washington Street into five buildings that the developers say will house luxury retail and the new location of the restaurant Pastis.

Opponents took issue with the proposed design for the two westernmost buildings, which they claim are too tall to fit in with the landmark-protected historic Meatpacking District.

Lobis' order specifically does not prohibit the developers from "doing whatever work is necessary to prepare the property at 52-58" Gansevoort St. — the middle site, east of the two buildings the opponents are fighting — for its planned renovation, the judge specified in court.

The developers' lawyer had argued that slowing progress at that middle site, where Pastis is slated to move in at the end of this year, by "even three months" would get in the way of their lease with Pastis.

"We need to deliver our work by the end of 2017," the lawyer said.

The developers cannot make any alterations to the exterior of 60-68 Gansevoort Street, but can do interior work, and can't do any work at all at 70-74 Gansevoort St., Lobis said.

The next step in the lawsuit is to determine an appropriate amount of bond that the opponents will have to put up to cover the costs to the developers in the event that the opponents lose the case.

All of the parties are due back in court on the afternoon of March 8, and Lobis encouraged them to work out the bond issue before that.

"If you can consent to an appropriate bond for that period, I obviously want to get into the merits" of the case, Lobis said.