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
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM AND WAS PENALIZED FOR REJECTING THE JUDGE’S PLEA OFFER AND GOING TO TRIAL; THE ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED BUT WERE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for a “Special Exception Permit” (Versus a “Variance”) Explained
THE PETITIONER, A PROBATIONARY POLICE OFFICER CHALLENGING HIS TERMINATION, RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; THEREFORE THE SUMMARY DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CPLR 409 WAS NOT AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).
EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN DECEDENT’S NAME AFTER DECEDENT HAD DIED, THE ACTION WAS NOT A NULLITY AND WAS PROPERLY REVIVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a); SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACT PROVISION ABOUT ALLOWED USES OF THE DIOCESE’S PROPERTY BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL WAS AMBIGUOUS, DIOCESE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SEEKING DAMAGES FOR BREACH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Petitioner, Who Was Not a Biological or Adoptive Parent of the Child, Was Adjudicated a Parent in a Support Proceeding Brought by the Respondent—Under the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel, Petitioner Was Deemed a Parent in a Subsequent Custody/Visitation Proceeding Brought by the Petitioner
NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AS AN INDEPENDENT TORT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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...