Last month the Court of Appeals addressed the state’s exercise of its power of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards project, as well as whether petitioners who first challenged the state’s determination in federal court could then appeal the determination to the Appellate Division. In another decision, the Court rejected challenges to two directives by executive and county officials that recognized same-sex marriages performed out of state for the purpose of making certain benefits available to the same-sex spouses of public employees. And in an action involving development near the Pine Bush area, the Court recognized that even good faith environmental challenges can be very burdensome and engender delay, and thus sought to strike a balance in deciding both of the issues before it, namely standing to challenge development on environmental impact grounds and the standard for judicial review of government assessments of the impact of rezoning. We discuss these decisions below.
Eminent Domain
In the Matter of Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., the Court was confronted for the second time this term1 with a significant real estate-related case—this time with state-wide implications. The issue was the legality of the exercise by respondent Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) of its power of eminent domain to acquire certain properties of the petitioners for a land use improvement project called Atlantic Yards. The case produced three opinions totaling 59 pages: one by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman for a four-judge majority that found the actions of ESDC to be lawful; a second, vigorous opinion by Judge Susan Phillips Read joined by Judge Eugene F. Pigott, Jr., that concurred in the result, but on a totally different basis; and lastly a dissent by Judge Robert S. Smith.
