Archive | Trade fixtures

2015 – Another Successful Year for Goldstein, Rikon, Rikon & Houghton, P.C.

As Justice Thomas A. Dickerson stated, in Matter of Irvington v Sokolik, 13 Misc3d 1220 [Sup. Ct. West 2006], “a condemnation proceeding is not a private litigation.  There is a constitutional mandate upon the court to give just and fair compensation for property taken.  This means just to the claimant and just to the people who are required to pay for it.”  Yaphank Development Co., Inc. v County of Suffolk, 203 AD2d 280, 609 NYS2d 346 [2d Dept 1994]. Notwithstanding the requirement of just compensation, Condemnors have consistently made low… read more

Posted in Advance Payments, Eminent Domain, Trade fixtures
Read more > 0

Horne v Dept of Agriculture: A Possible Aid to Obtaining Compensation for Trade Fixtures

On Monday June 22, 2015, the United States Supreme Court handed down the long-awaited decision in Horne, et al. v Department of Agriculture. The Court held that the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act (“AMA”)’s requirement that raisin growers set aside a certain percentage of their crop for the government, free of charge, constituted an unconstitutional taking under the takings clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This case presented a unique set of facts. Under the AMA, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate “marketing orders” that help… read more

Posted in Eminent Domain, Future of the law, Personal Property, Recent cases, Trade fixtures, US Supreme Court cases
Read more > 0

Appellate Division Refuses to Pierce Corporate Veil in Long Island City Taking

The Appellate Division, Second Department recently reversed an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.) entered October 16, 2012 which granted the Condemnor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim of Tennisport, Inc. for the taking of its trade fixtures, and additionally directed that an advance payment made to Tennisport be set off against the award for the compensation for the taking of the fee. In reversing, the Appellate Division held that the fee and fixture claims were made by separate and distinct legitimate corporations, and refused to… read more

Posted in Eminent Domain, Highest and Best Use, New York, Offer & Compensation, Trade fixtures
Read more > 0

Condemnors Acting Badly, Another Installment

It is a straight forward concept. If you exercise your power of eminent domain, you must, under our Federal and State Constitutions, pay just compensation. Section 101 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (“EDPL”) states that it is the purpose of the EDPL “to assure that just compensation shall be paid to the persons whose property rights are acquired by the exercise of the power of eminent domain.” The same provision requires payments to property owners to be expedited. The policy, set forth in section 301 requires the condemnor to… read more

Posted in Eminent Domain Abuse, Title vesting, Trade fixtures, Valuation
Read more > 2