Navigation

Author Archive | Michael Rikon

June 1, 2018

ANOTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING CLAIM DISMISSED

In our May 11, 2018 blog, we wrote about the Second Department’s affirmance of the dismissal of a claim by Yellow Cab Medallion owners that their property was taken when the City of New York permitted Uber and other for hire vehicles to provide 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 of the petitioners’ property (see… read more

By
Posted in Inverse Condemnation
Read more > 0

May 21, 2018

HOW DO WE GET TO THE BEACH?

Our Hawaiian friend, Robert T. Thomas, brought an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision to our attention.  The case, Chmielewski v The City of St. Pete Beach, was decided on May 16, 2018.  Robert writes an excellent blog, inversecondemnation.com.  The blog must be considered mandatory reading for anyone interested in eminent domain. In the Chmielewski case, the Court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a property owner who asserted that the City’s invitation to the public to access the beach by way of the owner’s privately-owned land was a… read more

By
Posted in Beach Access, Easements, Title
Read more > 0

May 11, 2018

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

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

May 10, 2018

CAN TENANTS FILE PETITIONS TO REDUCE ASSESSMENTS? MATTER OF LARCHMONT PANCAKE HOUSE

On May 8, 2018, the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal the decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department in Matter of Larchmont Pancake House v Board of Assessors, 153 AD3d 521 (2d Dept 2017). The decision caused a great deal of concern to the Tax Certiorari Bar.  Briefly stated, the Second Department held that while a tenant is an aggrieved party within the meaning of the RPTL because assessments have a direct effect on its pecuniary interests, Article 5 of the RPTL requires that the property owner file… read more

By
Posted in Tax Certiorari
Read more > 0

May 4, 2018

MATTER OF ADIRONDACK HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION: A RARE VICTORY UNDER EDPL 207

The Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) is the comprehensive law that uniformly dictates the procedures that must be followed by the state, municipalities and other entities with the power of eminent domain.  With certain exceptions, not relevant here, public hearings must be held before the condemnation may take place.  Following those hearings, the condemnor must make a determination and findings and publish a “brief synopsis.” The determination and findings must include the “public use, benefit or purpose” of the proposed project, the approximate location and the reasons for selecting the… read more

By
Posted in EDPL 207, Environmental Challenge
Read more > 0