You are here: / Eminent Domain
,

Potential Use of Condemned Property In Conjunction with Adjoining Land Properly Considered in the Valuation of the Taking/Statutory 6% Interest Applies in Condemnation Proceedings

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly took into consideration the potential use of the condemned land in conjunction with adjacent parcels of land in assessing the value of the property.  The court further determined that the statutory 6% interest for condemnation proceedings (General Municipal Law 3-a(2)) applied:

The measure of damages in a condemnation proceeding ” must reflect the fair market value of the property in its highest and best use on the date of the taking, regardless of whether the property is being put to such use at the time'” … . “The determination of highest and best use must be based upon evidence of a use which reasonably could or would be made of the property in the near future” … . ” The fact that the most profitable use of a parcel can be made only in combination with other lands does not necessarily exclude that use from consideration if the possibility of combination is reasonably sufficient to affect market value'” … . “Thus, a claimant is entitled to the fair market value of its property for its highest and best available use even though that use is in connection with adjoining properties, provided there is a reasonable probability that the condemned property would be combined with other tracts in the reasonably near future”… . Matter of City of Long Beach v Sun NLF Ltd Partnership, 2015 NY Slip Op 00370, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

, ,

Regulation of Use of Vacant Wetlands Constituted a Regulatory Taking—Analytical Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined that the regulations imposed on vacant wetlands constituted a regulatory taking of the land and affirmed Supreme Court’s evaluation of the taking.  The court included an in-depth discussion of the analytical criteria:

In a condemnation proceeding, a property restricted by wetlands regulations is valued pursuant to the restrictions imposed by the wetlands regulations at the time of the taking, unless the claimant can demonstrate a reasonable probability that “a higher or more productive use of the property would have been available by reason of a legislative rezoning or a judicial declaration of invalidity of the use restriction” … . “A landowner who claims that land regulation has effected a taking of his [or her] property bears the heavy burden of overcoming the presumption of constitutionality that attaches to the regulation and of proving every element of his [or her] claim beyond a reasonable doubt” … .

Generally, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking … . Analysis of whether nonpossessory governmental regulation of property has gone so far as to constitute a taking involves factual inquires in which three factors of particular significance have been identified: (1) “[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant”; (2) “the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations”; and (3) “the character of the governmental action” … .

As to the first factor, “the property owner must show by dollars and cents’ evidence that under no use permitted by the regulation under attack would the properties be capable of producing a reasonable return; the economic value, or all but a bare residue of the economic value, of the parcels must have been destroyed by the regulations at issue” … . Accordingly, standing alone, a serious and significant diminution of property value will typically not be deemed to constitute a regulatory taking … . * * *

Although the claimants admit that, at trial, they did not set forth any evidence with respect to the second factor …, under the circumstances presented here, such an omission is not fatal to their claim, especially upon consideration of the third factor. Under the third factor, generally, a property owner “must establish that the regulation attacked so restricts his [or her] property that he [or she] is precluded from using it for any purpose for which it is reasonably adapted” … . Matter of New Cr Bluebelt, Phase 4, 2014 NY Slip OP 08029, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

,

Measure of Damages for Taken Land Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s acceptance of claimant’s appraisal of the land taken for public use, the Second Department explained the analytical criteria:

When private property is taken for public use, the condemning authority must “compensate the owner so that [the owner] may be put in the same relative position, insofar as this is possible, as if the taking had not occurred'” … . “The measure of damages must reflect the fair market value of the property in its highest and best use on the date of the taking, regardless of whether the property is being put to such use at the time” … . A property’s market value is defined as ” the amount which one desiring but not compelled to purchase will pay under ordinary conditions to a seller who desires but is not compelled to sell'” … . Moreover, “[i]t is necessary to show that there is a reasonable possibility that the property’s highest and best asserted use could or would have been made within the reasonably near future, and a use which is no more than a speculative or hypothetical arrangement may not be accepted as the basis for an award” …  Matter of Metropolitan Transp Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 08027, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

,

Land Owner Entitled to “Rental-Value” Compensation for Area Encompassed by Temporary Easement for Roadway Widening Project, Not “Rental-Value” Compensation for the Entire Parcel

The Second Department affirmed the Court of Claims ruling that a temporary easement along the roadway taken by the state during a road-widening project did not affect the entire parcel.  Therefore the proper measure of compensation was the rental value of the area encompassed by the easement, not the rental value of the whole:

Generally speaking, a claimant is entitled to compensation for any loss suffered as a result of the taking of a temporary easement … . There is, however, no recovery where there is no loss … . Indeed, ” compensation need not be paid for the State’s taking of a temporary easement when there is no actual interference with the property owner’s use of his [or her] property'” … .

Where a taking of a temporary easement encumbers a parcel’s entire highway frontage, as in the instant case, the measure of damages is “the rental value of the land encompassed within the temporary easement for so long as the easement is in effect plus, as consequential damages, the rental value of the parcel’s unencumbered interior acreage for any period of time when highway access was not possible by virtue of the easement’s use” … . A condemnee is entitled to consequential damages comprising the rental value of the parcel’s unencumbered interior acreage for the easement’s duration only if the condemnor does not meet its burden of proving the duration of the “interval of actual obstruction,” or if the condemnee establishes that the “mere existence” of the temporary easement interfered with highest and best use of the property “in more than a conjectural sense” … . Ronmar Realty Inc v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07343, 2nd Dept 10-29-15

 

, ,

Corporations Owned by the Individual Operating the Businesses Were Not the “Alter Ego” of the Individual Owner—Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Not Met—Corporation Which Leased the Property from the Corporation Which Owned the Property Was Entitled to Compensation for Fixtures

The Second Department determined there was insufficient evidence to support piercing the corporate veil with respect to corporations owned by the individual operating the relevant businesses.  The corporations were formed for legitimate purposes, including owning and leasing back the subject property, and there was no evidence of any fraud.  The relevant criteria were explained.  In addition, the Second Department determined the tenant corporation was entitled to compensation for the fixtures on the condemned property and explained the relevant criteria:

In general, “a corporation has a separate legal existence from its shareholders even where the corporation is wholly owned by a single individual” … . Although “[o]ne of the primary legitimate purposes of incorporating is to limit or eliminate the personal liability of corporate principals” …, “the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil allows a corporation's separate legal existence to be disregarded to prevent fraud and achieve equity” … . “A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must demonstrate that a court in equity should intervene because the owners of the corporation exercised complete domination over it in the transaction at issue and, in doing so, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form, thereby perpetrating a wrong that resulted in injury to the plaintiff” … .

Here, the petitioner points to Botur's sole ownership of Tennisport and his acknowledged day-to-day control over Nixbot, and argues that, on this basis, the Supreme Court properly determined that Tennisport and Nixbot were essentially Botur's alter egos. However, as this Court has observed, “if, standing alone, domination over corporate conduct in a particular transaction were sufficient to support the imposition of personal liability on the corporate owner, virtually every cause of action brought against a corporation either wholly or principally owned by an individual who conducts corporate affairs could also be asserted against that owner personally, rendering the principle of limited liability largely illusory. Thus, the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must also establish that the owners, through their domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form'” … . Thus, in determining whether an owner has “abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form,” a court may consider, inter alia, whether there was a “failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use” … . * * *

Where the condemnor appropriates land to which a tenant has annexed fixtures, the tenant is entitled to compensation “for his [or her] interest in any annexations to the real property which but for the fact that the real property has been taken, he [or she] would have had the right to remove at the end of his [or her] lease” … . This is true even where the condemnor has no use for the fixtures attached, because “condemnation is a forced sale that places the State and the claimant in the position of vendee and vendor” … . As the Court of Appeals has observed, “[t]he law of fixtures was evolved by the judiciary in order to ameliorate the harsh result to those who substantially improved property but who had less than a fee interest. These rules, when applied in an eminent domain proceeding, protect the owner of this type of property from being deprived of compensation when the land upon which they are situated is condemned” … . Thus, an award for the taking of fixtures is properly seen as “just compensation to the claimant, not a windfall” … . Matter of Queens W Dev Corp…, 2014 NY Slip OP 06983, 2nd Dept 10-15-14

 

,

Highest and Best Use is Measure of Damages—Unconsummated Purchase Contract Is Valid Proof of Value

The Second Department explained the measure of damages for a taking (highest and best use) and determined an unconsummated purchase contract was valid proof of value:

“The measure of damages must reflect the fair market value of the property in its highest and best use on the date of the taking, regardless of whether the property is being put to such use at the time” … . The determination of highest and best use must be based upon evidence of a use which reasonably could or would be made of the property in the near future … . Here, contrary to the Sewer District’s contentions, Split Rock satisfied its burden of demonstrating that the highest and best use of the subject property was for the commercial development of an office center.

A property’s market value is defined as ” the amount which one desiring but not compelled to purchase will pay under ordinary conditions to a seller who desires but is not compelled to sell'” … . “[T]he purchase price set in the course of an arm’s length transaction of recent vintage, if not explained away as abnormal in any fashion, is evidence of the highest rank’ to determine the true value of the property at that time” … . Matter of Western Ramapo Sewer Extension Project, 2014 NY Slip Op 05889, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

,

Flawed Appraisals Would Not Allow a Determination of the Highest and Best Use of the Taken Land

The Third Department determined the appraisal reports submitted for both side were flawed such that the highest and best use of the taken land could not be determined.  The matter was sent back to the Court of Claims.  The court explained the operative principles:

When private property is appropriated for public use, just compensation must be paid, which requires that the owner be placed in the financial position that he or she would have occupied had the property not been taken … . Upon a partial taking of real property, an owner is not only entitled to the value of the land taken — i.e., direct damages — but also to consequential damages, which consist of the diminution in value of the owner’s remaining land as a result of the taking or the use of the property taken … . Damages must be measured based upon the fair market value of the property as if it were being put to its highest and best use on the date of the appropriation, whether or not the property was being used in such manner at that time … . Matter of State of New York…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05002, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Criteria for Valuation of Vacant Land Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly valued the condemned vacant land. Supreme Court rejected the village’s contention that Supreme Court had improperly incorporated the enhancement of value resulting from the inclusion of the property in the village’s urban redevelopment plan. The court explained the criteria for determining the value of vacant land:

In a case involving the taking of property, “[t]he measure of damages must reflect the fair market value of the property in its highest and best use on the date of the taking, regardless of whether the property is being put to such use at the time” … .Where an increment is added to the value of vacant land to reflect its development potential, “the specific increment which is selected and applied must be based on sufficient evidence and be satisfactorily explained” … . Moreover “[i]t is … necessary to show that there is a reasonable possibility that the property’s highest and best asserted use could or would have been made within the reasonably near future, and a use which is no more than a speculative or hypothetical arrangement may not be accepted as the basis for an award” … .”[A] condemnee may not receive an enhanced value for its property where the enhancement is due to the property’s inclusion within a redevelopment plan” … . Thus, for example, property zoned for industrial use “should be valued in accordance with the industrial zoning designation which would apply if the redevelopment plan did not exist,” for “[a] condemnee is only entitled to compensation for what it has lost, not for what the condemnor has gained”… . Matter of Village of Haverstraw (AAA Electricians Inc), 2014 NY Slip Op 01332, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

, ,

Disclosure of Appraisal Documents Not Entitled to Conditional Immunity Even If Prepared Solely for Litigation/No Other Way for Claimants to Obtain Relevant Evidence

In a matter related to the taking of property for the construction of a highway, the Third Department determined the claimants were entitled to an appraisal done by the defendants, even if the documents were prepared solely in anticipation of litigation.  The claimants demonstrated that they had no other avenue to obtain the evidence relevant to their claims:

Even if the documents were prepared solely in anticipation of litigation, claimants demonstrated that the conditional immunity should not prevent disclosure because they have a substantial need and an inability to otherwise obtain the documents.  … The Court of Claims … acknowledged that the subpoenaed documents were relevant to the claim for property damage, to prove the condition of the property immediately before the construction.  Thus, even if the documents were drafted solely for litigation purposes, the appraisal and supporting documents would be subject to disclosure based on claimants’ substantial need and their lack of another source for that proof (see CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). Lerner v State of New York, 516774, 3rd Dept 1-9-14

 

, ,

Criteria for Review of Agency’s Condemnation of Land Explained/Failure to Consider Future Development of Land Did Not Constitute Improper Segmentation of Environmental Impact Review

The Fourth Department determined the condemnation of land by the Lockport Industrial Development Agency (LIDA) and the related State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review were properly done. The court determined that the failure to consider future development of the land did not amount to an improper segmentation of the SEQRA review process: The court explained its review powers in this context as follows:

It is well settled that the scope of our review of LIDA’s determination is “very limited” … .  We must “ ‘either confirm or reject [LIDA’s] determination and findings,’ and [our] review is confined to whether (1) the proceeding was constitutionally sound; (2) [LIDA] had the requisite authority; (3) its determination complied with SEQRA and EDPL article 2; and (4) the acquisition will serve a public use” (id.; see EDPL 207 [C]).  “The burden is on the party challenging the condemnation to establish that the determination ‘was without foundation and baseless’ . . . Thus, ‘[i]f an adequate basis for a determination is shown and the objector cannot show that the determination was without foundation, the [condemnor’s] determination should be confirmed’… . * * *

Although LIDA considered only the impact of the acquisition and not the impact of potential development, we reject [the] contention that LIDA thereby improperly segmented the SEQRA review process (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [ag]).  Although LIDA intends to sell the property to a potential developer, there was no identified purchaser or specific plan for development at the time the SEQRA review was conducted …, and thus we conclude that under these facts the acquisition is not a “separate part[] ‘of a set of activities or steps’ in a single action or project”… . Matter of GM Components Holdings LLC v Town of Lockport Industrial Development Agency, 1275, 4th Dept 12-27-13

 

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