Bowers Dev. v. Oneida Cnty. Indus. Dev. Agency

• Decision Date: 23 December 2022
• Docket Number: 764 OP 22-00744
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 07327
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF BOWERS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, AND ROME PLUMBING & HEATING SUPPLY CO., INC., PETITIONERS, v. ONEIDA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CENTRAL UTICA BUILDING, LLC, RESPONDENTS.

2022 NY Slip Op 07327

IN THE MATTER OF BOWERS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, AND ROME PLUMBING & HEATING SUPPLY CO., INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
ONEIDA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CENTRAL UTICA BUILDING, LLC, RESPONDENTS.

No. 764 OP 22-00744

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

December 23, 2022

FOGEL & BROWN, P.C., SYRACUSE (MICHAEL A. FOGEL OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONERS.

PAUL J. GOLDMAN, ALBANY, FOR RESPONDENT ONEIDA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY.

COHEN COMPAGNI BECKMAN APPLER & KNOLL, PLLC, SYRACUSE (LAURA L. SPRING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT CENTRAL UTICA BUILDING, LLC.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., NEMOYER, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.

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.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is annulled on the law without costs and the petition is granted.

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. 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 [the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)] and EDPL article 2; and (4) the acquisition will serve a public use" (Matter of City of New York [Grand Lafayette Props. LLC], 6 N.Y.3d 540, 546 [2006]; see EDPL 207 [C]; Matter of Syracuse Univ. v Project Orange Assoc. Servs. Corp., 71 A.D.3d 1432, 1433 [4th Dept 2010], appeal dismissed and lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 924 [2010]).

We agree with petitioners that OCIDA lacked the requisite authority to acquire the subject property. As an industrial development agency, OCIDA's statutory purposes are, inter alia, to "promote, develop, encourage and assist in the acquiring... [of]... commercial... facilities" (General Municipal Law § 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 "[t]o acquire by purchase, grant, lease, gift, pursuant to the provisions of the eminent domain procedure law, or otherwise and to use, real property... 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). 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. Rather, the property was to be acquired because it was a necessary component of a larger hospital and healthcare facility project. We therefore annul the determination and grant the petition (see Syracuse Univ., 71 A.D.3d at 1435; see generally Schulman v People, 10 N.Y.2d 249, 255-256 [1961]; Peasley v Reid, 57 A.D.2d 998, 999 [3d Dept 1977]).

In light of our determination, petitioners' remaining contentions are academic (see Matter of Hargett v Town of Ticonderoga, 35 A.D.3d 1122, 1124 [3d Dept 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 810 [2007]).

All 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. Inasmuch as I agree with respondents that acquisition of the subject property serves a public purpose (see generally Matter of Truett v Oneida County, 200 A.D.3d 1721, 1722 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 907 [2022]), and further agree that petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit, I would confirm the determination and dismiss the petition.

I.

Following an extensive review process that concluded in 2015, the Mohawk Valley Hospital System (MVHS) began the process of consolidating its healthcare services for Oneida, Herkimer, and Madison counties into an integrated healthcare campus to be located in a blighted section of the downtown area of the City of Utica. In 2017, MVHS received a $300 million grant from the New York State Department of Health to situate the integrated healthcare campus at the downtown location. The central feature of the new campus will be Wynn Hospital, which has received its certificate of need and is currently under construction. Since its inception, MVHS's plan for the healthcare campus has included a private medical office...