Laserfiche WebLink
<br />June 25, 20091 Volume 31 No. 12 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />ity or advantage." A "public use" was one that "contribute[d] to <br />the he~lth, safety, general welfare, convenience or prosperity of the <br />community." Since the Project Site had been found-through a study <br />with much empirical data-to be substandard, the court concluded <br />~at its taking for urban renewai was for a public purpose. <br />The court also rejected the Residents' alternative argument that <br />even if the condemnation of their properties served a public benefit, <br />the takings still contravened the New York Constitution. The Resi- <br />dents had argued this was because any public benefit was "merely <br />incidental to the private benefit that would be realized by [Forest <br />City]." Disagreeing, the court said any incidental profit to Forest City <br />from the Atlantic Yards project would not "undercut the public pur- <br />pose of the condemnation of the substandard land." "[W]here the <br />public good [was] expected to be enhanced by [the] project, it [did] <br />not matter that private interests might be benefitted." <br /> <br />See also: 49 WB, LLC v. Village of Haverst1'aW, 44 A.D.3d 226, 839 <br />N.Y.S.2d 127 (2d Dep't 2007). <br /> <br />See also: Yonkers Community Development Agency v. Morris, 37 <br />N. Y.2d 478, 373 N. Y.S.2d 112, 335 N.E.2d 327 (1975). <br /> <br />Case Note: The Residents had first challenged the proposed <br />taking in federal court. In that action, they primarily assert- . <br />ed that the proposed taking violated the Public Use clause of <br />the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. After <br />the federal court rejected that claim, the Residents brought <br />this state law claim. In doing so, the Residents argued that the <br />New York Constitution imposed a "more restrictive standard <br />for the taking of private property than that imposed by the <br />United States Constitution." <br /> <br />Case Note: The Residents' had brought additional claims of <br />state constitution violatiops-including violation of their due <br />process and equal protection rights. The court also rejected <br />these other claims. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />'"' <br /> <br />154 <br />