INWOOD, NY — A controversial rezoning of Uptown's Inwood neighborhood passed by the City Council in 2018 was annulled Thursday by a state judge, according to court documents.

New York State Supreme Court Justice Verna Saunders sided with a group of rezoning opponents under the banner Inwood Legal Action, which brought an Article 78 lawsuit against the city in December 2018 to challenge the city's rezoning of their neighborhood. The city plan would upzone large swaths of Inwood east of 10th Avenue to facilitate large-scale residential developments while rezoning areas west of 10th Avenue in an attempt to preserve the existing neighborhood's character. Saunders' ruling sends the rezoning plan back to the city Economic Development Corporation and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development, which will be required to study issues raised in Inwood Legal Action's Article 78 lawsuit. Inwood Legal Action's arguments contended that the city's environmental review process for the upzoning failed to analyze several effects of the plan on neighborhood residents.

Activists from Inwood Legal Action and Northern Manhattan is not 4 Sale recently argued that city agencies should be required to conduct studies on racial impacts for major land use projects such as rezonings. "Inwood Legal Action is very happy that Justice Verna Saunders ruled in our favor in our targeted Article 78 lawsuit against the City of New York. This is a win for all of Inwood: our whole community, our neighbors and our local minority and women-owned businesses, as well as for all New York City neighborhoods that have been targeted for De Blasio's rezonings," Karla Fisk of Inwood Legal Action said in a statement.

Opening statements for the lawsuit were argued in August. Michael Sussman asked Saunders to overturn the City Council's approval of the rezoning on the basis that the process behind the city's environmental review — not the results of the studies — was improper and arbitrary. Inwood Legal Action identified eight potential effects of the rezoning that the city's environmental review failed to study:

The socio-economic consequences of the rezoning, specifically the rezoning's impact on tenants with preferential rents and other forms of residential displacement;

The racial impact of the rezoning and its effects on racial displacement;

The rezoning's effects on minority and women-owned businesses;

Deviations between the rezoning's predicted effects and the actual effects of prior rezonings;

The social consequences of the rezoning's plan to replace Inwood's library branch;

The rezoning's effects on emergency response times in the neighborhood;

The cumulative effect of the city rezoning combined with other land use actions in Inwood;

Speculative real estate purchase in Inwood during the rezoning process. Saunders ruled that the city's failure take a "hard look" at these eight potential effects of the rezoning violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act and City Environmental Quality Review processes.

City lawyers argued that the eight points raised by Inwood Legal Action didn't necessitate additional review because they are not identified in the City Environmental Quality Review manual, according to court documents. Saunders' ruling states that the city's decision not to study the effects "fails to dispute that the issues raised may have an adverse impact on the Inwood environment."

"While it is accurate that respondent (the city) is not called to identify or address every conceivable environmental impact, the public review process exists to allow the residents of the community, who will ultimately reap the benefits/consequences of the proposal," Saunders wrote in Thursday's ruling. City Law Department Spokesman Nick Paolucci said in a statement that the city will appeal Saunders' decision.