Real Estate & Property Law

Following Statutory Requirements to Challenge Necessity

By Alan Ackerman

The case of In Re City of Syracuse Industrial Development, 910 N.Y.S. 2d 612, is an excellent example of yet another situation in which owners thought they could challenge necessity in a roundabout fashion. As in almost every other state, a statute specifically lays out the process to challenge a condemnation. Either you do it right, or you forfeit standing in the forum, thereby losing the right to challenge the taking. Property owners and their attorneys should pay close attention to statutory requirements.

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Dept.

In contending that it was deprived of its right to due process by SIDA's alleged insufficient notice of the prior EDPL article 2 proceeding, respondent is in fact contending that the prior "proceeding was [not] in conformity with the federal and state constitutions" (EDPL 207 [C] [1]), and that contention therefore should have been raised before this Court in an original proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 (see EDPL 208; Broome County, 159 AD2d 790, 551 N.Y.S.2d 1007). Respondent failed to raise that contention in such a proceeding, however, and "may not [now] circumvent the command of the statute with respect to the procedures governing judicial review by raising [its] objections within the context of an EDPL article 4 vesting proceeding" (Incorporated Vil. of Patchogue, 112 AD2d 374, 375, 491 N.Y.S.2d 827, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 605, 489 N.E.2d 1302, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1025).

Full post as published by National Eminent Domain Blog on March 07, 2011 (boomark / email).