The purpose of the Eminent Domain Blog is to provide the public with information about the practice of eminent domain law. We also hope to share relevant updates and legal developments affecting this area of the law.

Third Department Gets The Project Influence Rule Right

The Third Department got it right in Matter of State of New York v KKS Properties, LLC, __ AD3d __, (July 3, 2014). The lower court’s decision in¬†KKS Properties, LLC is one of those decisions that makes you cringe. An award on an appropriation claim in the Court of Claims which is lower than the advance payment resulting in a judgment in favor of the State is an outrageous outcome for a compulsory taking of one’s property. We have often advocated that there must be a minimum of “just compensation.” A condemnor is required to appraise the property before a … Continue reading

Posted in Eminent Domain, Project Influence Rule, Published Articles, Recent cases | Leave a comment

Second Circuit Applies Williamson County to Physical Takings

The Second Circuit applied the Williamson County Regional Planning Comm. v. Hamilton Bank Johnson City, 473 US 172 (1985) rule to a case involving an actual physical taking. The rule had been applied previously to claims involving regulatory takings. The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must first obtain a final decision and exhaust all state remedies before suing in Federal Court. In Kurtz v Verizon New York, Docket No 13-3900 CV, the Second Circuit ruled by decision dated July 16, 2014, that even in a physical taking, property owners may not seek compensation in Federal Court until they exhaust … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New York’s Judicial View

New York is one of three states in the Union that does not provide for jury trials in eminent domain cases. All of our trials are by the court. But New York’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law does provide a very important provision: the judicial view. Section 510 of the EDPL states: (A) The trial court shall view the property in all claims, unless waived by stipulation of the parties. The parties to the suit or claim, may attend the viewing by the court at a time scheduled by the court. (B) When the property or improvements acquired are to be … Continue reading

Posted in Eminent Domain, Judicial view, New York | Leave a comment

New York City to the Rescue- Council Members Seek to Use Eminent Domain to Condemn Underwater Mortgages

At a press conference on the steps of City Hall, City Council members and housing advocacy groups called on the Mayor to help homeowners who are at risk of foreclosure. Such help would come in the form of using eminent domain to “buy back mortgages where homeowners owe more than their houses are worth.” According to a CBS report on June 25, 2014, “under the proposed plan, City government would purchase the mortgages from banks and refinance them to match the home’s value to prevent foreclosure.” According to the report, 60,000 New York City mortgages are still “underwater.” Councilman Mark … Continue reading

Posted in Continuing Legal Education, Eminent Domain Abuse, Future of the law, Mortgage seizures, New York, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

California Supreme Court Grants Review in Property Reserve Case

In our June 5, 2014 posting we reported a significant California Case, Property Reserve, Inc v Superior Court, 224 Cal. App. 4th 828 (2014). In Property Reserve, the Third District California Court of Appeal ruled that entry statutes are unconstitutional when the activities for which entry is sought constitute an intentional taking of property without the full protections offered by a condemnation action. For separate reasons, the Court of Appeal found that both the geological and environmental studies would effect a taking or intentional damage of property; thus the filing of a condemnation action would be a pre-requisite to the … Continue reading

Posted in Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain Abuse, Entry Statutes, Future of the law | Leave a comment