Archive | Inverse Condemnation

DAMAGES FOR FLOODING ARE ALL WET IN A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING.

          The First Department handed down an interesting decision distinguishing an eminent domain claim from a tort claim.  In 82 Willis, LLC v The City of New York, ____ AD3d ____ [1st Dept 2019], 2019 NY Slip Op 08162, the Claimant filed a claim pursuant to EDPL Sec. 503 in the condemnation proceeding asserting a taking for an easement over its lot.  When it submitted its appraisal, it sought damages for flooding after rainfall.  The City moved to strike the appraisal on the basis that the flooding damages do not… read more

Posted in Flooding, Inverse Condemnation, Tort Claim for Flooding, Uncategorized
Read more > 0

IT’S TIME TO PUT AN END TO THE BIAS IN FAVOR OF CONDEMNORS

We recently read a decision from the Court of Claims where the following statement is found “… all considered with the understanding that the burden of proof is establishing an entitlement to substantial compensation rests with claimant (see Andrews v State of New York, 137 AD2d 952, 953 (3d Dept).” Cardinal Development Properties, Ltd. v The State of New York, Claim No. 120333, Decision Filed December 18, 2018, J. Hudson. Why would a Court of Claims Judge believe that this is true in a de jure appropriation? In other words,… read more

Posted in Burden of Proof, Condemnation, Inverse Condemnation
Read more > 0

MORE KNICK ON KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT

We wrote about this case in our September 21, 2018 blog.  The Township of Scott, Pennsylvania passed an ordinance affecting private properties determined to be or contain cemeteries. In relevant part, the ordinance required that “all cemeteries within the Township . . . be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours” and that no owner could unreasonably restrict nor charge any fee to access the cemetery (the “public-access provision”).  Additionally, the ordinance permitted a Township office to enter any property within the Township to determine whether… read more

Posted in De Jure Condemnation, Inverse Condemnation, Knick v Town of Scott
Read more > 0

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

Posted in Inverse Condemnation
Read more > 0

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