Eminent Domain Law

Court Rejects Challenge to Excessiveness of Condemnation Decision

Matter of Gyrodyne Co. v. State University of New York at Stony Brook

NYLJ 4/29/05, p. 29, col. 6

AppDiv, Second Dept

(memorandum opinion)

In a proceeding pursuant to section 207 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL), landowner challenged the determination of the State University at Stony Brook to acquire 246 acres of landowner's 314-acre parcel for construction of a new research an development campus. The Appellate Division confirmed the university's determination, rejecting landowner's contention that the acquisition was excessive.

The subject parcel is contiguous to the university's existing campus. Landowner challenged the university's authority to condemn the parcel, contending that condemnation must be for a public purpose, and that the proposed taking was more than necessary to serve any public purpose.

In confirming the university's determination, the Appellate Division noted that condemnors generally have broad discretion to decide what land is necessary to fulfill a public purpose. Here, the university's determination was made after extensive environmental impact studies, evaluation of alternative sites, and public participation. As a result, the court held that the acquisition was rational and would not be disturbed.

Court Rejects Challenge to Excessiveness of Condemnation Decision

Matter of Gyrodyne Co. v. State University of New York at Stony Brook

NYLJ 4/29/05, p. 29, col. 6

AppDiv, Second Dept

(memorandum opinion)

In a proceeding pursuant to section 207 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL), landowner challenged the determination of the State University at Stony Brook to acquire 246 acres of landowner's 314-acre parcel for construction of a new research an development campus. The Appellate Division confirmed the university's determination, rejecting landowner's contention that the acquisition was excessive.

The subject parcel is contiguous to the university's existing campus. Landowner challenged the university's authority to condemn the parcel, contending that condemnation must be for a public purpose, and that the proposed taking was more than necessary to serve any public purpose.

In confirming the university's determination, the Appellate Division noted that condemnors generally have broad discretion to decide what land is necessary to fulfill a public purpose. Here, the university's determination was made after extensive environmental impact studies, evaluation of alternative sites, and public participation. As a result, the court held that the acquisition was rational and would not be disturbed.