In the Matter of Arbern Sutphin Properties Llc v. City of N.Y.

Decision Date28 June 2011
Citation926 N.Y.S.2d 636,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05693,85 A.D.3d 1158
PartiesIn the Matter of ARBERN SUTPHIN PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., petitioners,v.CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, N.Y. (James G. Greilsheimer, Cynthia Lovinger Siderman, and Adam Taubman of counsel), for petitioners.Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Joseph Bavuso and Fred Kolikoff of counsel), for respondent.PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination of the City of New York, dated November 3, 2010, made after a public hearing, authorizing the condemnation of certain real property.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The petitioner Arbern Sutphin Properties, LLC, owns real property located at 90–79 Sutphin Boulevard in Jamaica, Queens, designated as Queens Block 9994, Lot 38 (hereinafter the subject property). The petitioner Jonas Equities, Inc., is the registered agent and managing agent of the subject property. The subject property comprises the entire blockfront along the northern side of Archer Avenue between Sutphin Boulevard and 147th Place and is within a site designated by the City of New York for a project known as the “Archer Avenue Station Plaza Project” (hereinafter the proposed project). The proposed project has its origins in the “Vision for Jamaica Center,” a planning strategy for the development of the area surrounding the Long Island Rail Road Jamaica Station facility (hereinafter Jamaica Station), issued by the Greater Jamaica Development Corporation in June 2000 in anticipation of the Air Train Terminal connecting Jamaica Station to JFK International Airport. Jamaica Station is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Archer Avenue and Sutphin Boulevard. The proposed project seeks to widen and realign Archer Avenue between 144th Place and 147th Place to increase pedestrian and vehicular safety, ease sidewalk and street congestion in the area, enhance intermodal connections for passengers, and “create new public spaces, concession opportunities and a more appropriate framework for anticipated additional commercial density in the Station Plaza area.” The petitioners challenge, pursuant to EDPL 207, the City's determination and findings, which authorized the condemnation of the subject property to effectuate the proposed project.

Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the determination and findings of the City fully satisfied the requirements of EDPL 204(B). EDPL 204(B) does not mandate that a condemnor address every specific concern or objection raised at the public hearing in its determination, and findings. Further, the record does not support the petitioners' contention that, in reaching its determination, the City failed to consider the petitioners' objections, including the objection that the proposed condemnation will reduce the value of the petitioners' adjacent property, designated Queens Block 9994, Lot 31, which is not being considered for acquisition by the City.

There is also no support in the record for the petitioners' contention that the City seeks to condemn a portion of the subject property merely to bestow a private benefit on a third party. Rather, the record evinces that the City's determination to condemn the subject property is rationally related to a public purpose ( see Matter of Aspen Cr. Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Brookhaven, 47 A.D.3d 267, 272, 848 N.Y.S.2d 214, affd. 12 N.Y.3d 735, 876 N.Y.S.2d 680, 904 N.E.2d 816, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • 265 Penn Realty Corp. v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 24 Octubre 2012
    ...and there is no basis upon which to disturb it ( see [953 N.Y.S.2d 143]Matter of Arbern Sutphin Props., LLC v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 1158, 1160, 926 N.Y.S.2d 636;Matter of Aspen Cr. Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Brookhaven, 47 A.D.3d at 278, 848 N.Y.S.2d 214,affd.76 N.Y.2d 923, 563 N.Y.S.2......
  • Peekskill Heights, Inc. v. City of Peekskill Common Council
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 30 Octubre 2013
    ...v. New York City School Constr. Auth., 95 A.D.3d at 1116, 944 N.Y.S.2d 315;Matter of Arbern Sutphin Props., LLC v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 1158, 1159–1160, 926 N.Y.S.2d 636). “ ‘[T]he fact that an intended public use confers incidental benefit to private persons or entities will not inv......
  • In the Matter of Am. Alternative Ins. Corp.. v. Pelszynski
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 28 Junio 2011
    ...by the petitioner, American Alternative Insurance Corp. (hereinafter AAIC). AAIC disclaimed coverage and moved to stay arbitration. [85 A.D.3d 1158] Pelszynski cross-moved to compel arbitration. The Supreme [926 N.Y.S.2d 642] Court denied AAIC's motion and granted Pelszynski's cross motion.......
  • Dougherty v. O'connor
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 28 Junio 2011
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT