![]() In light of our determination, petitioners' remaining contentions are academic (see Matter of Hargett v Town of Ticonderoga, 35 AD3d 1122, 1124, lv denied 8 NY3d 810 ).Īll concur except Curran, J., who dissents and votes to confirm the determination and dismiss the petition in the following memorandum: I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that respondent Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) lacked the requisite statutory authority to acquire the subject property via eminent domain pursuant to its broad purposes as set forth in General Municipal Law § 858 because I conclude that OCIDA's determination that construction of a surface parking lot on the subject property constitutes a "commercial facility" is neither irrational nor unreasonable. We therefore annul the determination and grant the petition (see Syracuse Univ., 71 AD3d at 1435 see generally Schulman v People, 10 NY2d 249, 255-256 Peasley v Reid, 57 AD2d 998, 999 ). Rather, the property was to be acquired because it was a necessary component of a larger hospital and healthcare facility project. While OCIDA's determination and findings indicate that the subject property was to be acquired for use as a surface parking lot, the record establishes that, contrary to respondents' assertion, the primary purpose of the acquisition was not a commercial purpose. ![]() therein necessary for its corporate purposes." The purposes enumerated in the statute do not include projects related to hospital or healthcare-related facilities (see § 858). OCIDA's powers of eminent domain are restricted by General Municipal Law § 858 (4), which provides, in relevant part, that an industrial development agency shall have the power "o acquire by purchase, grant, lease, gift, pursuant to the provisions of the eminent domain procedure law, or otherwise and to use, real property. facilities" (General Municipal Law § 858). As an industrial development agency, OCIDA's statutory purposes are, inter alia, to "promote, develop, encourage and assist in the acquiring. We agree with petitioners that OCIDA lacked the requisite authority to acquire the subject property. Pursuant to EDPL 207 (C), this Court "shall either confirm or reject the condemnor's determination and findings." Our scope of review is limited to "whether (1) the proceeding was constitutionally sound (2) the condemnor had the requisite authority (3) its determination complied with and EDPL article 2 and (4) the acquisition will serve a public use" (Matter of City of New York, 6 NY3d 540, 546 see EDPL 207 Matter of Syracuse Univ. ![]() Memorandum: Petitioners commenced this original proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 seeking to annul the determination of respondent Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) to condemn certain real property by eminent domain. It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is annulled on the law without costs and the petition is granted. Proceeding pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department) to annul the determination of respondent Oneida County Industrial Development Agency to condemn certain real property. SPRING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT CENTRAL UTICA BUILDING, LLC. GOLDMAN, ALBANY, FOR RESPONDENT ONEIDA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY.ĬOHEN COMPAGNI BECKMAN APPLER & KNOLL, PLLC, SYRACUSE (LAURA L. ONEIDA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CENTRAL UTICA BUILDING, LLC, RESPONDENTS.įOGEL & BROWN, P.C., SYRACUSE (MICHAEL A. IN THE MATTER OF BOWERS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, AND ROME PLUMBING & HEATING SUPPLY CO., INC., PETITIONERS, PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., NEMOYER, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Īppellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. Matter of Bowers Dev., LLC v Oneida County Indus.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |