Archive | Regulatory Taking

ANOTHER FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIM STRUCK DOWN

          The Second Department held that the City of New York did not take property from taxicab companies that own medallions.  The proceeding arises out of the rapid growth of for-hire vehicle services provided by companies such as Uber which allow passengers to use a smartphone application to electronically request on-demand ground transportation. The Court held, inter alia: Moreover, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the TLC’s alleged decision to “allow black cars to pick up e-hails” did not, as a matter of law, constitute an unconstitutional taking… read more

Posted in Fifth Amendment, Inverse Condemnation, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

CLARITY FOR NEW YORK TAKINGS LAW

Determining whether or not a government regulation constitutes a “taking” for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment can be a complex endeavor.  The recent Second Department decision of Matter of New Creek Bluebelt, Phase 3 (Baycrest Manor Inc.), ___ A.D.3d ____, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8042, (November 15, 2017), provides some guidance on three important regulatory takings issues. The underling case was not a regulatory taking per se.  Rather, the City of New York condemned property that was 100% wetlands.  Had the City not taken title, the owner could… read more

Posted in Regulatory Taking, Subsequent Purchases, Wetlands
Read more > 0

MUIR V. WISCONSIN “PARCEL AS A WHOLE” DOCTRINE SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

The United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument of the Muir case for March 20, 2017.  The case involved a regulatory taking claim which was premised on the adoption of a zoning ordinance which required a minimum “net project area.”  This resulted in the inability to develop or sell the contiguous parcel.  There were two parcels which although owned by the same owner and contiguous were purchased separately at different times for different purposes.  By itself the other lot would be grandfathered under the zoning law, but not when… read more

Posted in Inverse Condemnation, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

SUPREMACY CLAUSE? WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING SUPREMACY CLAUSE!

On December 7, 2016, the Appellate Division, Second Department handed down Monroe Equities, LLC v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08206.  The decision affirmed the dismissal of a claim for damages based on the contention that the application of watershed regulations precluding the right to install a septic system constituted a per se taking under Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution because claimant was deprived of all economically beneficial use of its property…. read more

Posted in Recent cases, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

Regulatory Taking and Inverse Condemnation: Taxi Medallions and Wetland Building Permits

In two separate decisions on August 15, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected regulatory taking and inverse condemnation claims. The first decision is about the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission’s (“TLC”) commitment to “adopt regulations requiring that half of the city’s more than 13,000 yellow cabs be accessible to people with disabilities within six years.”  Singh v. Joshi, 152 F. Supp. 3d 112 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). The plaintiffs are three individual TLC medallion holders who argued that, among other things, the… read more

Posted in Eminent Domain, Inverse Condemnation, Recent cases, Regulatory Taking, Wetlands
Read more > 0