Appeals Court Backs Landmarks Commission on House Used for Underground Railroad

The Manhattan Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court has ruled that a building owner should have sought permission from the Landmarks Preservation Commission when adding a fifth story to a landmark mid-19th-century rowhouse in Chelsea that may be the only surviving documented Manhattan station on the Underground Railroad.

The developer, Tony Mamounas, had sued New York City over a permit to alter the site, a Greek Revival building at 339 West 29th Street, between Eighth and Ninth Avenues. It was once home to Abigail Hopper Gibbons and her husband, James, who were prominent abolitionists. Known as the Hopper-Gibbons House, the property served as a shelter for runaway slaves who sought freedom in Canada.

“Hopefully, the history that transpired within the walls of this house will now be preserved for future generations, ironically during Black History month,” said Fern Luskin, a professor of art and architectural history at LaGuardia Community College who lives on the block and has championed the building.

In 2009, four years after the city’s Buildings Department approved the addition, officials revoked the permit after complaints about the project and an audit that found that the expansion did not meet state fire-safety codes.

The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission subsequently designated the building, along with others on the block, as part of the Lamartine Place Historic District, calling No. 339 “one of the very few extant sites to be associated with the pivotal events of those days.”

The Board of Standards and Appeals ultimately determined that the developer’s addition required the commission’s approval. Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the city’s Law Department, said he was pleased that the appellate court agreed that the board’s “determination regarding the development of this historic site was proper, rational and not arbitrary.”

Marvin B. Mitzner, the developer’s attorney, said: “Obviously we disagree with the decision. There are nuances in this case that the court didn’t appreciate and we’re weighing what our next steps are going to be.”