Archive | Wetlands

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

Landowners May Appeal To The Judiciary If Property Is Designated As Wetlands Subject To Federal Jurisdiction

This blog follows an article Michael Rikon wrote which was published in the New York Law Journal on August 26, 2016. Wetlands are areas saturated by surface or ground water sufficient to support distinctive vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.  The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulates two main types of wetlands, tidal wetlands along Long Island, New York City and up the Hudson River, and freshwater wetlands found on river and lake flood plains across the State. But wetlands may also be regulated by the… read more

Posted in Uncategorized, US Supreme Court cases, Wetlands
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

New York Law Journal: Inverse Condemnation or De Facto Taking – What’s in the Name?

Michael Rikon authored a column in the February 23, 2016, edition of the New York Law Journal titled, “Inverse Condemnation or De Facto Taking: What’s in the Name?  In his article, Mr. Rikon discusses the difference between inverse condemnations and de facto takings, and that courts err in interchangeably using these terms. Mr. Rikon reviews the four different categories of inverse condemnations, also known as regulatory takings.  Mr. Rikon covers Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., 544 U.S. 528 (2005), United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), Lucas v. South Carolina… read more

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

Staten Island Real Estate Developer Talk

On January 13, 2016, Michael Rikon gave a roundtable luncheon speech to some of Staten Island’s most prominent real estate developers about New York City’s (“City”) storm water program for Staten Island and how the City chose to condemn wetlands instead of constructing storm sewer lines. The storm water program, the “Bluebelt,” encompasses 16 watersheds and approximately 12,000 acres.  Once the City chose a wetland parcel to condemn, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation would not issue a wetland permit for that parcel. Mr. Rikon discussed the City’s… read more

Posted in Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain Abuse, New York, Regulatory Taking, Speaking Appearances, Wetlands
Read more > 0