One Point St., Inc. v. City of Yonkers Indus. Dev. Agency

170 A.D.3d 851

93 N.Y.S.3d 887 (Mem)

In the Matter of ONE POINT STREET, INC., et al., Petitioners,

v.CITY OF YONKERS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Respondent.

2018–00604

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

Argued—November 13, 2018

March 13, 2019

Knauf Shaw, LLP, Rochester, N.Y. (Linda R. Shaw and Dwight E. Kanyuck of counsel), for petitioners.

Shamberg Marwell Hollis Andreycak & Laidlaw, P.C., Mount Kisco, N.Y. (P. Daniel Hollis III of counsel), Harris Beach, PLLC, White Plains, N.Y. (John A. Mancuso, Joseph D. Picciotti, and Allison B. Fiut of counsel), and Pauline M. Galvin, Yonkers, NY, for respondent (one brief filed).

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & JUDGMENT

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The petitioners commenced this proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 seeking review of a determination of the respondent City of Yonkers Industrial Development Agency (hereinafter the agency) dated November 28, 2017, made after public hearings, that it was necessary to acquire the petitioners' vacant property by eminent domain for the purpose of returning the property to productive use in accordance with the City's Ravine Master Plan and the Warburton–Ravine Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan, among other things.

"The principal purpose of EDPL article 2 is to ensure that an agency does not acquire property without having made a reasoned determination that the condemnation will serve a valid public purpose" ( Matter of Citibank, N.A. v. Village of Tarrytown , 149 A.D.3d 931, 932, 52 N.Y.S.3d 398 ; see EDPL 201 ; Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , 67 N.Y.2d 400, 417–418, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 494 N.E.2d 429 ; Matter of 265 Penn Realty Corp. v. City of New York , 99 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 953 N.Y.S.2d 141 ). "Judicial review of a condemnation determination is limited to whether the proceeding was constitutional, whether the proposed acquisition is within the condemnor's statutory jurisdiction or authority, whether the determination and findings were made in accordance with the procedures set forth in EDPL article 2 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and whether a public use, benefit, or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition" ( Matter of Citibank, N.A. v. Village of Tarrytown , 149 A.D.3d at 932, 52 N.Y.S.3d 398 ; see EDPL 207[C] ; Matter of Waldo's, Inc. v. Village of Johnson City , 74 N.Y.2d 718, 720, 544 N.Y.S.2d 809, 543 N.E.2d 74 ; Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , 67 N.Y.2d at 418, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 494 N.E.2d 429 ; Matter of 265 Penn Realty Corp. v. City of New York , 99 A.D.3d at 1015, 953 N.Y.S.2d 141 ).

The petitioners failed to demonstrate any basis for setting aside the agency's determination. Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the agency's determination is rationally related to the stated public purposes (see Matter of Kaur v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , 15 N.Y.3d 235, 252–255, 907 N.Y.S.2d 122, 933 N.E.2d 721 ; Matter of Aspen Cr. Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Brookhaven , 47 A.D.3d 267, 272, 848 N.Y.S.2d 214, affd 12 N.Y.3d 735, 876 N.Y.S.2d 680, 904 N.E.2d 816 ; Matter of Haberman v. City of Long Beach , 307 A.D.2d 313, 314, 762 N.Y.S.2d 425 ; see also Kelo v. New London , 545 U.S. 469, 477–490, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 ). The agency's stated purposes were not so vague as to be illusory (see 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 ; Matter of Uptown Holdings, LLC v. City of New York , 77 A.D.3d 434, 435, 908 N.Y.S.2d 657 ), and the petitioners' unsubstantiated allegations fall far short of the "clear showing" necessary to establish that the agency acted in bad faith ( Matter of 265 Penn Realty Corp. v. City of New York , 99 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 953 N.Y.S.2d 141 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

The condemnor has broad discretion to decide which land is necessary to fulfill its stated purpose (see Matter of Citibank, N.A. v. Village of Tarrytown , 149 A.D.3d at 932, 52 N.Y.S.3d 398 ). Here, the agency's determination that the proposed acquisition is necessary to achieve the desired public purpose was rational, and there is no basis upon which to disturb it (see Matter of Peekskill Hgts., Inc. v. City of Peekskill Common Council , 110 A.D.3d 1079, 1081, 974 N.Y.S.2d 501 ; Matter of 265 Penn Realty Corp. v. City of New York , 99 A.D.3d at 1015, 953 N.Y.S.2d 141 ). To the extent the petitioners contend that alternate sites would better serve the agency's purposes,...