Hits: 0
WPCNR Evening City Star Reporter. By John F. Bailey. December 6, 2002, 1:15 A.M. UPDATED 12 Noon E.S.T.: New York Presbyterian Hospital and the City of White Plains mutually agreed Thursday that the Hospital would postpone its intention to open a second Article 78 legal front in the ongoing struggle to build a biotech research and proton accelerator facility project the Common Council approved last August 5.

THE PAPER CHASE CONTINUES: The Tolling Agreement signed by the City and New York Presbyterian Hospital Thursday, giving the parties 32 days to work out hospital objections to the terms of the approval of their biotech research and proton accelerator facility on their property.
Photo by WPCNR Legal
The city and New York Presbyterian Hospital have agreed to a 32-Day “Tolling Agreement.” The hospital has agreed to postpone filing an Article 78 proceeding they had planned to file Thursday (120 days after the August 5 approval of their project), to overturn conditions of Special Permit the city attached to the proton accelerator-biotech research center project. The “Tolling Period” will expire January 6, 2003.
A Subdued City Hall.
On the early winter’s snowy evening, George Gretsas, Executive Officer for the City of White Plains, announcing the agreement Thursday told WPCNR the hospital informed the city of their intention of filing an Article 78 action to overturn some of the 80 pages of conditions the city attached to their approval of the project last August in the Findings Statement.
The new Article 78 action, if filed by New York Presbyterian Hospital, would have been the second Article 78 action filed on the Council’s historic August 5 decision, and still might be if a common ground is not established on the conditions the hospital is protesting.
Concerned Citizens for Open Space filed an Article 78, represented by Oxman, Tullis, Kirkpatrick and Whyatt last September. The CCOS suit in essence protests the Council had not given a thorough review of the project and that a zoning change was required, not a Special Permit. That suit is in the hands of Judge Richard Mollea in New York State Supreme Court, according to the most recent information WPCNR has been able to elicit from the embattled City Legal Department.
Not the Approval the Hospital Had in Mind
Gretsas said the hospital expressed to the city that they had problems with some of the specific conditions set forth in the Common Council’s Findings Statement and Special Permit.
Gretsas, raising his eyebrows with with an air of puzzlement, speculated that some of those conditions might be the Council restricting research to medical use, city oversight of research safety, and possibly restrictions on biosafety levels of the search. He wearily cautioned this was outright speculation on his part, indicating the city was mystified why the hospital was considering an Article 78 suit on an approved project, noting,
“The city and the hospital hope to discuss issues of mutual concern,” Gretsas told WPCNR, “concerns about the conditions imposed on them by the city on August 5. The city will discuss with the hospital the community needs and to gauge the hospital’s willingness to address some of these needs.”
Council consulted.
Before the city consented to the “Tolling Agreement,” Gretsas said the ramifications were discussed with the Common Council. He said the Council is willing to sit down with the hospital and discuss the hospital’s concerns that would cause them to bring a lawsuit on the conditions of their approval.
King: Council Has Not Met on Tolling AgreementKing
Councilman William King checked in with WPCNR News, upon learning of the Tolling Agreement through this article and wanted WPCNR to make clear the Council had not met as a body on the Tolling Agreement.
Mr. King made this statement to WPCNR:
I think you should make clear in your website article that the Council did not meet yesterday and we did not sign the agreement. Each of the councilpeople was contacted by phone. I was contacted by Ben (Boykin) late Wednesday night. Rita (Malmud) is in Florida. I don’t know if any councilpeople were at the gathering yesterday you refer to. Just so your readers are clear, the Council has not met on any NYPH issue, in public or in exec session, since the approval (6-1) was given on 8/5/02. I also have never heard of a tolling agreement before and do not know what it is or how it gets its name.
Déjà vu :Confidential Talks Again to Avoid a Lawsuit?
As the agreement was explained to WPCNR, a chilling atmosphere of déjà vu settled over the gathering. The Tolling Agreement was eerily similar to the intrigue of intimidation that leaked out of secret sessions with New York Presbyterian Hospital in January, 2001. At that time, the hospital in a very similar way had a lawsuit going, and wanted to discuss with the city terms for dropping their suit.
The Common Council, briefed behind closed doors by a phalanx of hospital and city attorneys, agreed to the hospital’s terms for dropping their lawsuit against the city, which was immediate consideration of their biotech research and proton accelerator project.
In those secret meetings, WPCNR learned the hospital threatened to sue the city for upwards of $500 Million or more (the city budget is $100 Million), if they did not review the proton accelerator project. When the city agreed to consider the project they had turned their back on in July, 2000, the hospital dropped their Article 78 action. Subsequently, a year and a half review ultimately lead to this August’s council approval.
Hospital and Administration Talk First. Then Council to Join In.
Gretsas said meetings between the administration and the hospital would take place in executive session, over the next four weeks. The talks, he said would be held in confidence because the concerns to be considered were principle lynchpins of the hospital’s intended litigation.
Common Council’s turn.
Mr. Gretsas said that upon discovering what the hospital’s issues are with hospital representatives and city department heads, then there would be “a dialogue” with the Common Council in Executive Session, to determine how the matters might be resolved to both parties’ and the Council’s satisfaction, if there was common ground for compromise.
It appears at this time, the principles of these talks will only be the Common Council, city department heads, and New York Presbyterian Hospital representatives and principles.
Fool’s Gold?
Gretsas cautioned about the public getting their hopes up that the hospital might be willing to trade some of their land for city concessions on the approval terms: “It could very well be that there’s nothing really to discuss.”
Gretsas said the city is very much aware of the restrictions on the original settlement of the first New York Presbyterian Hospital Article 78 action, which prohibit the city from extorting and demanding any exchange of land for city concessions.
The Fine Print.
In the 2-Page “Tolling Agreement” released by the city Thursday, the hospital has agreed to refrain from the commencement of an Article 78 proceeding challenging the Special Use Resolution by the aforesaid deadline (December 5, 2002), and has agreed to enter good faith negotiations to discuss the mutual concerns of the parties.




