You are here: / / PROHIBITING SEPTIC SYSTEMS WITHIN 300 FEET OF A LAKE WAS NOT AN UNCONSITUTIONAL...

PROHIBITING SEPTIC SYSTEMS WITHIN 300 FEET OF A LAKE WAS NOT AN UNCONSITUTIONAL REGULATORY TAKING OF CLAIMANT’S PROPERTY.

The Second Department determined the Court of Claims properly dismissed claimant’s cause of action alleging a state watershed regulation prohibiting septic systems within 300 feet of a lake amounted to an unconstitutional taking of the property (because it could not be developed):

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment … , provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation” (US Constitution Amendment V). The Takings Clause “is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking” … . In addition to physical takings, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that “government regulation of private property may, in some instances, be so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation or ouster— and that such regulatory takings’ may be compensable under the Fifth Amendment” … .

The United States Supreme Court has “generally eschewed” any set formula for identifying regulatory takings, choosing instead to engage in ” essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries'” considering a number of factors … . However, it has recognized two categories of regulatory action that will be deemed per se takings for Fifth Amendment purposes, without the need to engage in case-specific inquiries: (1) regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a permanent physical invasion of the property, and (2) regulations that completely deprive an owner of “all economically beneficial us[e]” of the property … .

Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the claimant failed to establish, prima facie, that the subject property has suffered a complete elimination of value as a result of the watershed regulations… . Monroe Equities, LLC v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08206, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

REAL PROPERTY (PROHIBITING SEPTIC SYSTEMS WITHIN 300 FEET OF A LAKE WAS NOT AN UNCONSITUTIONAL REGULATORY TAKING OF CLAIMANT’S PROPERTY)/EMINENT DOMAIN (PROHIBITING SEPTIC SYSTEMS WITHIN 300 FEET OF A LAKE WAS NOT AN UNCONSITUTIONAL REGULATORY TAKING OF CLAIMANT’S PROPERTY)/REGULATORY TAKING (PROHIBITING SEPTIC SYSTEMS WITHIN 300 FEET OF A LAKE WAS NOT AN UNCONSITUTIONAL REGULATORY TAKING OF CLAIMANT’S PROPERTY)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF RELIED ON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO AMEND THE CAPTION TO CORRECT THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Zoning Change Prohibiting Subdivision Was Foreseeable, Developer Not Entitled to Rescind Contract for Land Purchase
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE STEP WAS MARKED AND THERE WAS A WARNING SIGN, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE STEP AND THE SIGN COULD NOT BE SEEN WHEN THE AREA WAS CROWDED; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STAIR-FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A TOWN POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS INJURED UNDERGOING A PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST AS A CANDIDATE FOR A COUNTY SWAT TEAM WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SUCH THAT THE POLICE OFFICER’S ONLY REMEDY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).
Court Cannot Condition Future Visitation On Parent’s Participation in Counseling or Treatment
Plaintiff Allegedly Assaulted by Intoxicated Patron–Proof Requirements Under Dram Shop Act Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S...