GM Components Holdings, LLC v. Town of Lockport Indus. Dev. Agency

• Decision Date: 27 December 2013
• Parties: In the Matter of GM COMPONENTS HOLDINGS, LLC, Petitioner, v. TOWN OF LOCKPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

112 A.D.3d 1351

977 N.Y.S.2d 836

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08739

In the Matter of GM COMPONENTS HOLDINGS, LLC, Petitioner,

v.TOWN OF LOCKPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Dec. 27, 2013.

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Brody D. Smith of Counsel), for Petitioner.

Jones, Hogan & Brooks, LLP, Lockport (Morgan L. Jones, Jr., of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, and SCONIERS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner, GM Components Holdings, LLC (GMCH), commenced this original proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 seeking to annul the determination of respondent, Town of Lockport Industrial Development Agency (LIDA), authorizing the condemnation of 91 acres of vacant land owned by GMCH for the purpose of expanding LIDA's industrial park. It is undisputed that the parties had been unsuccessful in negotiating an agreement for LIDA's purchase of the subject property. LIDA determined that a public purpose would be served by increasing its inventory of industrial-zoned sites available for sale to potential purchasers/developers, particularly sites of 25 or more acres, thereby providing jobs for residents of the area and a broader tax base for the Town of Lockport. With respect to the required review of the environmental impact of the proposed condemnation pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ( [SEQRA] ECL article 8; seeEDPL 207[C][3] ), LIDA issued a negative declaration based upon its determination that the acquisition of the property would not result in a negative impact on the environment. GMCH contends, inter alia, that LIDA's determination that the acquisition would serve a public use is illusory because potential developers have the option to purchase the property from GMCH. GMCH further contends that LIDA failed to comply with SEQRA because it improperly segmented the review by considering only the acquisition, and not the future development, of the parcel.

It is well settled that the scope of our review of LIDA's determination is “very limited” (Matter of City of New York [Grand Lafayette Props. LLC], 6 N.Y.3d 540, 546, 814 N.Y.S.2d 592, 847 N.E.2d 1166). We must “ ‘either confirm or reject [LIDA's] determination and findings,’ and [our] review is confined to whether (1) the proceeding was constitutionally sound; (2) [LIDA] had the requisite authority; (3) its determination complied with SEQRA and EDPL article 2; and (4) the acquisition will serve a public use” ( id.; seeEDPL 207[C] ). “The 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 Butler v. Onondaga County Legislature, 39 A.D.3d 1271, 1271–1272, 833 N.Y.S.2d 829).

Addressing first the public use factor, we note that, in support of its determination authorizing the condemnation, LIDA found that since the creation of the 201–acre industrial park in 1981 it has assisted 30 businesses, accounting for investments totaling $399,164,000 and employment of 491 area residents. LIDA also found that as of early 2013 there were only 56 acres of vacant land in the industrial park and only 33 acres thereof were suitable for sale and development, with the single largest parcel measuring 14 acres total. Since 2008, LIDA has conducted five sales, including a total of 42 acres to Yahoo! in 2009 and 2012. LIDA also found that the property, which is bordered by a state highway and a railroad, is in proximity to the industrial park and is zoned for industrial use. We therefore conclude that LIDA's determination to exercise eminent domain power “is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose” (Matter of Kaufmann's Carousel v. City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 301 A.D.2d 292, 303, 750 N.Y.S.2d 212, lv. denied99 N.Y.2d 508, 757 N.Y.S.2d 819, 787 N.E.2d 1165 [internal quotation marks omitted]; cf. Matter of Syracuse Univ. v. Project...