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
Defendant Homeowner Demonstrated She Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Notice of the Dangerous Condition and Did Not Create the Dangerous Condition (Deck Collapsed When Plaintiff Was Inspecting the Property Prior to Beginning Work)
Money Available to Father from Relatives for Children’s College Expenses Should Have Been Considered in Allocating those Expenses between Mother and Father
AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, ATTORNEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH BILLING RULES AND NO EXPERT AFFIDAVITS WERE SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
Family Court Should Not Have Terminated Parental Rights (After an Alleged Violation of a Drug-Treatment Condition of a Suspended Judgment) Without Holding the Necessary Hearings
Family Court Has No Power to Add to Terms of Remittitur
FAMILY COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE ITS REASONS FOR DETERMINING CHILD SUPPORT BASED ON PARENTAL INCOME IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY CAP; THE ORIGINAL SUPPORT LEVEL BASED ON THE STATUTORY CAP REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).
PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW BUYERS TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT DURING THE CONTINGENCY PERIOD, BUYERS’ ACTION TO RECOVER THE DOWN PAYMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Three-Family Residence Was Owner-Occupied–Administrative Code’s Exemption from Liability for Failure to Remove Ice and Snow May Not Apply

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 © 2025 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...