Eisenhauer v. Cnty. of Jefferson, 1118 OP 14-00510
| Decision Date | 14 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | 1118 OP 14-00510 |
| Citation | 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07844,122 A.D.3d 1312,996 N.Y.S.2d 441 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Roscoe A. EISENHAUER, Jr., Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Eisenhauer Law Firm, Watertown (Roscoe A. Eisenhauer, Jr., of Counsel), for Petitioner.
Menter, Rudin & Trivelpiece, P.C., Syracuse (Julian B. Modesti of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, and VALENTINO, JJ.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207, seeking judicial review of respondent's determination to condemn certain real property for the purpose of expanding a runway at a public airport. Preliminarily, we note that “[t]he 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” (Matter of GM Components Holdings, LLC v. Town of Lockport Indus. Dev. Agency, 112 A.D.3d 1351, 1352, 977 N.Y.S.2d 836, appeal dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 1165, 985 N.Y.S.2d 466, 8 N.E.3d 842, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 905, 2014 WL 2609538 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
We reject petitioner's contention that respondent failed to demonstrate that an actual public use, benefit, or purpose will be served by the proposed taking. “A ‘public use, benefit or purpose’ must exist to warrant the exercise of the power of eminent domain (EDPL 204[B][1] )” (Matter of Syracuse Univ. v. Project Orange Assoc. Servs. Corp., 71 A.D.3d 1432, 1433, 897 N.Y.S.2d 335, appeal dismissed and lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 924, 905 N.Y.S.2d 126, 931 N.E.2d 96 ), and “ ‘[w]hat qualifies as “public purpose” or “public use” is broadly defined as encompassing virtually any project that may confer upon the public a benefit, utility, or advantage’ ” (id. ). “ ‘Whether a use to which property is to be devoted by a condemnor is, in fact, for the public benefit is a question to be determined by [this] [C]ourt [ ] based on the record’ ” (id. ), and on these facts we conclude that the taking is for the public benefit.
We also reject petitioner's contention that the taking is excessive, both in volume and in nature. “ ‘While it is well established that a condemnor cannot take, by use of the power of eminent domain, property not necessary to fulfill the public purpose, it is generally accepted that the condemnor has broad discretion in deciding what land is necessary to fulfill that purpose’ ” (Matter of Doyle v. Schuylerville Cent. Sch. Dist., 35 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 826 N.Y.S.2d 797, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 804, 840 N.Y.S.2d 764, 872 N.E.2d 877, rearg. denied 9 N.Y.3d 939, 844 N.Y.S.2d 779, 876 N.E.2d 507 ; see Hallock v. State of New York, 32 N.Y.2d 599, 605, 347 N.Y.S.2d 60, 300 N.E.2d 430 ). On this record, we conclude that respondent neither abused nor improvidently exercised its discretion in determining the scope of the taking (see Matter of Butler v. Onondaga County Legislature, 39 A.D.3d 1271, 1272, 833 N.Y.S.2d 829 ).
Finally, petitioner contends that respondent failed to comply with EDPL 207(4) and article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law 5SEQRA] State Environmental Quality Review Act). “ ‘Judicial review of a lead agency's SEQRA determination is limited to whether the determination was made in accordance with lawful procedure and whether, substantively, the determination ‘was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion’ ” (Akpan v. Koch, 75 N.Y.2d 561, 570, 555 N.Y.S.2d 16, 554 N.E.2d 53 [1990], quoting CPLR 7803[3] ). ‘In assessing an...
To continue reading
Request your trial