Eminent Domain Law

In upholding the city's determination, the Appellate Division held that landowner had not identified any environmental harm that would be caused by the project. In addition, the court held that the notice was adequate, that landowner was not in a position to complain about public comment because landowner did not appear at the public hearing, and that there was no evidence that the taking was excessive. Finally, the court held that any incidental benefit a private developer might receive was insufficient to invalidate the condemnation.

Comment

If a condemnor justifies a condemnation based on substandard or blighted conditions of the property, courts will defer the condemnor's determination that it served a public purpose, even though the condemnation would confer substantial benefits to private parties. In W. 41st St. Realty LLC v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 298 A.D.2d 1, 744 N.Y.S.2d 121 (2002), relying on the condemnor's blight determination that part of the Times Square area was blighted, the court upheld the condemnation's public use, even though the project focused on construction of an office tower for the New York Times' new headquarters. Similarly, the court in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 13 N.Y.3d 511, deferred to the condemnor's determination of blight to affirm the Atlantic Yards condemnation, which included construction of the Barclay center and other commercial developments.

However, courts will invalidate a condemnation when the condemnor's stated public purpose would have been accomplished equally well, or better, without the condemnation. In 49 WB, LLC v. Vill. of Haverstraw, 44 A.D.3d 226, 839 N.Y.S.2d 127 (2007), the court annulled the village's condemnation that allowed a non-profit to construct affordable housing units on the condemned property. The condemnation would not further any public purpose because, if the property were not condemned, the condemnee had agreed to build affordable housing, which would yield more total units in the area. Furthermore, the condemned property had already met the condemnation's other goals of providing office space for the non-profit and healthcare providers.

Courts are less likely to defer to condemnation by a private party when the condemnation appears exclusively motivated by the condemnor's financial self-interest. In Syracuse Univ. v. Project Orange Assocs. Servs. Corp., 71 A.D.3d 1432, 897 N.Y.S.2d 335 (2010), the condemnor, an electric utility corporation, sought to condemn a property upon which the condemnor had already operated an energy plant under a lease with the condemnee fee owner. Since the condemnation was merely an attempt by the condemnor to get out of the unfavorable lease, and the electricity in the area was oversupplied, the condemnation did not serve any public purpose and thus was annulled.