You are here: / / PRIOR PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED CONDEMNATION OF LAND ALREADY SUBJECT...
,

PRIOR PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED CONDEMNATION OF LAND ALREADY SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC USE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED USE WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE EXISTING PUBLIC USE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the condemnation of a parcel of land owned by the city, determined that the proposed new use of the land would interfere with its current public use as a bus depot, a violation of the prior public use doctrine:

… [T]he proposed condemnation is prohibited under the doctrine of prior public use. Under the doctrine of prior public use, land already devoted to a public use may not be condemned absent legislative authority for the particular acquisition at issue … . However, land already devoted to a public use may be condemned without legislative authority ” where the new use would not materially interfere with the initial use'” … . The Agency does not contest that the subject parcel is devoted to a public use, or that there exists no legislative authority for the proposed condemnation … . Thus, the subject parcel may not be condemned unless the new use would not materially interfere with the existing public use … .

The Agency’s proposed condemnation of the subject parcel for the purpose of returning the parcel to productive use in furtherance of urban renewal would materially interfere with its existing public use as a bus depot. … Accordingly, the Agency’s determination to condemn the subject parcel must be rejected. Matter of City of New York v Yonkers Indus. Dev. Agency, 2019 NY Slip Op 02087, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

​

You might also like
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, PRE-MIRANDA QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ABOUT HIS EMPLOYMENT CONSTITUTED CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION; ALL OF DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS, PRE- AND POST-MIRANDA, MUST BE SUPPRESSED; JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ADMITTED FOR A NONHEARSAY PURPOSE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THEIR TRUTH (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL.
Child Properly Found to Be a Vulnerable Witness and Properly Allowed to Testify Outside the Presence of the Defendant in a Sexual -Offense Trial
PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE OF TWO NON-PARTY DOCTORS WHO ALSO TREATED PLAINTIFF, IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT SHOWN TO BE QUALIFIED TO OFFER OPINION EVIDENCE CONCERNING EMERGENCY MEDICINE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ROOFER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE HE FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ROOF WHICH WAS COVERED ONLY BY A SHEET OF BLACK PLASTIC; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIED HIS SAFETY HARNESS SO HE COULD ASSIST A CO-WORKER DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HAZARD WAS NOT CREATED BY THEIR SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
IF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD FINDS A DEFENDANT IN A CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY AGAINST THE EMPLOYER IS RESTRICTED TO WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS CANNOT MAINTAIN ACTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THAT EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT).

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

DEFENDANT DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER IT HAD ACTUAL... THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE ALLEGEDLY DISABLED PERSON WAS NOT COMPETENT IN...