Court St. Dev. Project, LLC v. Utica Urban Renewal Agency

188 A.D.3d 1601

136 N.Y.S.3d 588

In the Matter of COURT STREET DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LLC, Petitioner,

v.UTICA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, Respondent.

OP 20-00086

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: November 13, 2020

E. STEWART JONES HACKER MURPHY LLP, LATHAM (PATRICK L. SEELY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP, ALBANY (CHRISTOPHER M. MCDONALD OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this original proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 seeking to annul the determination of respondent authorizing the condemnation of petitioner's real property. The property is one of four parcels on which the Northland Building (building) on Court Street in Utica, New York is situated. The building has been vacant since 2016.

Pursuant to EDPL 207, the scope of this Court's review of a determination to condemn property is " ‘very limited’ " ( Matter of Syracuse Univ. v. Project Orange Assoc. Servs. Corp. , 71 A.D.3d 1432, 1433, 897 N.Y.S.2d 335 [4th Dept. 2010], appeal dismissed and lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 924, 905 N.Y.S.2d 126, 931 N.E.2d 96 [2010], quoting Matter of City of New York [Grand Lafayette Props. LLC] , 6 N.Y.3d 540, 546, 814 N.Y.S.2d 592, 847 N.E.2d 1166 [2006] ). We must either confirm or reject the condemnor's determination, and our review is "confined to whether (1) the proceeding was constitutionally sound; (2) the condemnor had the requisite authority; (3) its determination complied with [the State Environmental Quality Review Act ([SEQRA] ECL art 8)] and EDPL article 2; and (4) the acquisition will serve a public use" ( Grand Lafayette Props. LLC , 6 N.Y.3d at 546, 814 N.Y.S.2d 592, 847 N.E.2d 1166 ). "The burden is on the party challenging the condemnation to establish that the determination was without foundation and baseless.... Thus, [i]f an adequate basis for a determination is shown and the objector cannot show that the determination was without foundation, the [condemnor's] determination should be confirmed" ( Matter of GM Components Holdings, LLC v. Town of Lockport Indus. Dev. Agency , 112 A.D.3d 1351, 1352, 977 N.Y.S.2d 836 [4th Dept. 2013], appeal dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 1165, 985 N.Y.S.2d 466, 8 N.E.3d 842 [2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 905, 2014 WL 2609538 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Eisenhauer v. County of Jefferson , 122 A.D.3d 1312, 1312, 996 N.Y.S.2d 441 [4th Dept. 2014] ).

Initially, we reject the contention of petitioner that condemnation is beyond respondent's statutory authority because there has been no finding that petitioner's parcel is blighted. Areas of economic underdevelopment and stagnation may be considered blighted so as to support the taking of vacant and underutilized properties located therein (see Matter of Haberman v. City of Long Beach , 307 A.D.2d 313, 313-314, 762 N.Y.S.2d 425 [2d Dept. 2003], appeal dismissed 1 N.Y.3d 535, 775 N.Y.S.2d 232, 807 N.E.2d 282 [2003], lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 601, 782 N.Y.S.2d 404, 816 N.E.2d 194 [2004], cert dismissed 543 U.S. 1086, 125 S.Ct. 1239, 160 L.Ed.2d 896 [2005] ; see also Matter of Glen Cove Community Dev. Agency [Ardaas, Inc.] , 259 A.D.2d 750, 751, 712 N.Y.S.2d 553 [2d Dept. 1999] ). Here, respondent determined that the building is economically underutilized and has experienced deterioration since it became vacant in 2016. Respondent owns two of the four parcels on which the building is situated and has negotiated a transfer of title with respect to a third parcel, but its redevelopment and reuse of the building is not feasible unless it owns all four parcels. Condemnation of petitioner's parcel will allow respondent to hold complete title to the building and will thus foster the redevelopment of the building, which is an adequate basis for respondent's determination to exercise its legislatively conferred power to acquire real property in order to eliminate blighting influences (see General Municipal Law §§ 501, 554, 616 ).

We also reject petitioner's contention that the condemnation will not serve a public purpose. "What qualifies as public purpose or public use is broadly defined as encompassing virtually any project that may confer upon the public a benefit, utility, or advantage" ( Syracuse Univ. , 71 A.D.3d at 1433, 897 N.Y.S.2d 335 [internal quotation marks omitted]). In its determination, respondent stated that the public use, benefit, or purpose of the acquisition is to eliminate any dispute over title and access to the building so as to facilitate the rehabilitation and reuse of the building, with an intention of securing investment in the building and creating jobs and encouraging economic development. Redevelopment is a valid public purpose (see Matter of United Ref. Co. of Pa. v. Town of Amherst , 173 A.D.3d 1810, 1811, 105 N.Y.S.3d 235 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 913, 2020 WL 1467110 [2020] ; see also Matter of Bendo v. Jamestown Urban Renewal Agency , 291 A.D.2d 859, 860, 738 N.Y.S.2d 615 [4th Dept. 2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 603, 745 N.Y.S.2d 502, 772 N.E.2d 605 [2002] ; Sunrise Props. v. Jamestown Urban Renewal Agency , 206 A.D.2d 913, 913, 614 N.Y.S.2d 841 [4th Dept. 1994], lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 809, 621 N.Y.S.2d 518, 645 N.E.2d 1218 [1994] ), and respondent's condemnation of petitioner's property serves the valid public purpose of clearing title in order to promote redevelopment and adaptive reuse.

Petitioner further contends that respondent failed to satisfy the requirements of SEQRA. Our review of respondent's SEQRA determination "is limited to whether the determination was made in accordance with lawful procedure and whether, substantively, the determination was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Akpan v. Koch , 75 N.Y.2d 561, 570, 555 N.Y.S.2d 16, 554 N.E.2d 53 [1990] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Petitioner contends that, by considering only the impact of the condemnation of petitioner's property without considering the impact of future unknown aspects of the rehabilitation or reuse project, respondent improperly "segmented" its SEQRA review. We reject that contention. "Segmentation occurs when the environmental review of a single action is broken down into smaller stages or activities, addressed as though they are independent and unrelated," which is prohibited in order to prevent "a project with potentially significant environmental effects from being split into two or more...