Eminent Domain Law

Hudson Yards Acquisition Upheld

In re C/S 12^th Avenue, LLC v. City of New York

NYLJ 6/1/06, p. 22, col. 1

AppDiv, First Dept

(Opinion by Malone, J.)

In five consolidated proceedings brought pursuant to Section 207 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, landowners challenged New York City's determination approving acquisition of real property and/or easements for extension of the Number 7 subway line and redevelopment of the Hudson Yards as a mixed-use community. The Appellate Division confirmed the city's determinations.

After preparation of an 8000-page final generic environmental impact statement, the city and the MTA approved three phases of the project. Phase 1 included extension of the subway line, phase 2 included creation of a mid-block park and boulevard system running between 10^th and 11^th Avenues from 33^rd through 39^th Streets, and phase 3 included creation of a new active recreation park. Separate landowners, some of whose property would be subject to condemnation in each of the three phases, challenged the city's determination as inconsistent with the federal and state constitutions, beyond the condemnor's statutory jurisdiction and authority, inconsistent with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and not in furtherance of a public use.

The court first rejected the SEQRA challenge, noting that in light of the extensive review process, the city had taken the 'hard look' required by the statute. The court rejected landowner's argument that elimination from the project of a proposed stadium and a proposed expansion of the Javits convention center did not require preparation of a supplementary environmental impact statement, concluding that the agency had a reasonable basis for concluding that the modification of the project was not significant for environmental review purposes. The court then rejected the federal and state takings claims, noting that landowners could pursue just compensation within the eminent domain proceeding, and rejected a reverse spot zoning claim on the ground that the rezoning for creation of a mid-block boulevard and park was part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan. The court then rejected the claim of lack of statutory authority, and finally determined that even if some of the project might be the site of commercial development the project as a whole could still advance a public purpose.

Hudson Yards Acquisition Upheld

In re C/S 12^th Avenue, LLC v. City of New York

NYLJ 6/1/06, p. 22, col. 1

AppDiv, First Dept

(Opinion by Malone, J.)

In five consolidated proceedings brought pursuant to Section 207 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, landowners challenged New York City's determination approving acquisition of real property and/or easements for extension of the Number 7 subway line and redevelopment of the Hudson Yards as a mixed-use community. The Appellate Division confirmed the city's determinations.

After preparation of an 8000-page final generic environmental impact statement, the city and the MTA approved three phases of the project. Phase 1 included extension of the subway line, phase 2 included creation of a mid-block park and boulevard system running between 10^th and 11^th Avenues from 33^rd through 39^th Streets, and phase 3 included creation of a new active recreation park. Separate landowners, some of whose property would be subject to condemnation in each of the three phases, challenged the city's determination as inconsistent with the federal and state constitutions, beyond the condemnor's statutory jurisdiction and authority, inconsistent with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and not in furtherance of a public use.

The court first rejected the SEQRA challenge, noting that in light of the extensive review process, the city had taken the 'hard look' required by the statute. The court rejected landowner's argument that elimination from the project of a proposed stadium and a proposed expansion of the Javits convention center did not require preparation of a supplementary environmental impact statement, concluding that the agency had a reasonable basis for concluding that the modification of the project was not significant for environmental review purposes. The court then rejected the federal and state takings claims, noting that landowners could pursue just compensation within the eminent domain proceeding, and rejected a reverse spot zoning claim on the ground that the rezoning for creation of a mid-block boulevard and park was part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan. The court then rejected the claim of lack of statutory authority, and finally determined that even if some of the project might be the site of commercial development the project as a whole could still advance a public purpose.