Comments on: Appellate Division Grants Preliminary Injunction Based on Project’s “Revolutionary” Green Construction Financing

By: Sam Capasso

Sam Capasso — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 22:43:18 +0000

I think this injunction may only be a blip in the ultimate trajectory of green buildings. As more green financing becomes available and green buildings are built, they will no longer, by definition, be unique. The court says “the unprecedented nature and scope of the Project makes it unique.” To then say green buildings are “inherently unique” is a bit of a stretch.

By: Stephen Del Percio

Stephen Del Percio — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:46:25 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Steve. In terms of Destiny’s “uniqueness,” the court called the project “unprecedented in nature and scope.” It’s also interesting that the authority to which the court cited in support of that argument was the Greener Buildings article (linked above, and which the dissent points out).

By: Steve Sacks

Steve Sacks — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:03:50 +0000

Stephen, What a great post! I love your conclusions and observations. Now Green can be a sword and a shield! I appreciate your second conclusion regarding opposition based on performance. I think it’s a reach, but it may be all the opposition has. I’m not sure one can base an opposition to such a motion just on the fact that Green buildings may perform the same as standard buildings. I haven’t read the opinion, but from your post I gather the “uniqueness” for Destiny was not only based on the unique Green features but also – and especially – based on the unique Green financing. In other words, Citi bought into the reputation, so they have to support it. I’ll have to think about how else you could oppose this… Thanks for thinking through both sides. Steve