In our last posted blog, we criticized the Second Department’s decision in the above case for confusing what is necessary to prove a reasonable probability of rezoning and the ability to develop land pursuant to a special permit. But there is another problem with the Appellate Division’s decision. It held that although three parcels were physically contiguous and had unity of ownership, parcel 3 could not be considered as having unity of use because the claimant had entered into a ground lease for parcel 3 seventeen months before the vesting… read more
December 27, 2017