Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

Lawyers for both the city of Syracuse and the Columbus Monument Corporation presented arguments on Monday to the New York State Appellate Division’s Fourth Judicial Department amid CMC’s ongoing challenge to Mayor Ben Walsh’s plans to remove the Christopher Columbus monument in downtown Syracuse. The hearing comes after a year-long appeal process through which Walsh has pushed to reverse a state judge’s March 2022 decision favoring CMC.

At Monday’s hearing in Rochester, attorneys for each party debated whether New York State Supreme Court Justice Gerard Neri issued the decision prematurely in Walsh’s process to physically remove the monument. Since Neri’s decision and amid the city’s appeal, several local organizations have filed amicus curiae briefs and held protests to continue advocating for the removal.

Hancock and Estabrook law firm attorney John Powers, who represented the city of Syracuse, argued that Neri’s initial ruling was premature. While it was issued following Walsh’s announcement of his intent to remove the statue, he said, the administrative process of the removal decision was not complete.

Specifically, Powers said, the city had yet to undergo review and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness, which allows for changes to a building or property that is designated as a protected site or within a preservation district. Because these processes have not occurred, Neri’s decision came too early to be considered valid, Powers argued.

“There’s literally no plan yet,” Powers said. “The court does not know what it’s ruling on. There is no plan in place. It hasn’t been created yet.”

Walsh first announced his intention to remove the monument and relocate it to a private space in October 2020, following nationwide protests over the murder of George Floyd in May 2020. CMC sued three months later in January 2021, under the premise that the monument represented Italian-American heritage and should remain downtown as a symbol of the immigrant community’s contributions to American society.

Anthony Pietrafesa, the attorney representing CMC, said that considering Walsh and the city had made their plans for the monument clear at the time of the suit’s original filing in January 2021, the group was justified in its timing for bringing the suit because there was finality.

Pietrafesa also explained that initially, in keeping the statue up, the city was bound to a contract created in the 1990s to maintain the monument for 23 years, or as long as it was in good enough condition to stay up. Pietrafesa argued that because the statue is in stable condition now, the contract is still in effect.

In his plans to move the monument, Walsh stated his intent to build a heritage site representing multiple cultures in its place.

Powers said once the city’s plan for the monument’s removal and replacement is developed, it would go to the public art commission, before consideration by the city planning commission. After that, it would undergo review and be voted on in a public hearing for the Certificate of Appropriateness.

In his closing remarks, Powers acknowledged that the city’s grounds for removing the monument went beyond the finality standards and expired contract to include Columbus’ representation of racism and colonialism. He pointed to the submitted briefs as supplements for the judges to see the rest of the argument.

Powers closed by pointing the judges to the briefs which were submitted to support the rest of the city’s argument regarding the monument.

The court is expected to issue a ruling in the lawsuit this summer.

Published on April 4, 2023 at 2:05 am

Contact Stephanie: spwright@syr.edu