MATTER OF HABERMAN v. City of Long Beach
| Decision Date | 21 July 2003 |
| Citation | 762 N.Y.S.2d 425,307 A.D.2d 313 |
| Parties | In the Matter of SINCLAIR HABERMAN, Petitioner,<BR>v.<BR>CITY OF LONG BEACH et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
After a public hearing, the respondent City Council of the City of Long Beach (hereinafter the City Council) adopted a resolution to condemn a parcel of vacant oceanfront land, containing more than six acres, commonly known as the "Superblock." The petitioner owns a lot in the Superblock, containing approximately 2.52 acres.
A study commissioned by the City of Long Beach in 1998 determined that the Superblock area was substandard and blighted due to the existence of vacant and underutilized properties which were insufficiently sized and configured. The study concluded that full development of this prime area would require assemblage of the properties to allow for comprehensive redevelopment as a single site, and that the area was appropriate for urban renewal. The City Council thereafter prepared an Urban Renewal Plan, which proposed to acquire the Superblock properties and redevelop them for retail, residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Requests for proposals were sent out and a developer was selected. The petitioner's proposals for development of the Superblock, although considered, were rejected. The petitioner contends that condemnation of his property where he is ready, willing, and able to develop the property in a manner that is fully consistent with the City's urban renewal plan serves no valid public purpose, and for this reason, the determination to condemn must be annulled. We disagree.
A municipality's taking of substandard land for urban renewal serves a valid public purpose (see Yonkers Community Dev. Agency v Morris, 37 NY2d 478, 482 [1975]; see also Matter of Glen Cove Dev. Agency, 259 AD2d 750 [1999]; Sun Co. v City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 209 AD2d 34, 43 [1995]; Matter of Horoshko, 90 AD2d 850 [1982]). "Judicial review of a condemnation determination is limited to whether the proceeding was constitutional, whether the proposed acquisition is within the condemnor's statutory jurisdiction, whether the determination and findings were made in accordance with the procedures set forth in EDPL article 2, and whether a public use, benefit, or purpose will be served" (Matter of Congregation Gates of Prayer of Far Rockaway v New York City School Constr. Auth., 286 AD2d 439 [2001]). In this instance, the respondents made that showing (see EDPL 207 [C]; Matter of East Thirteenth St. Community Assn. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 84 NY2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Ref. Co. of Pa. v. Town of Amherst
...It is well settled that redevelopment and urban renewal are valid public uses (see Matter of Haberman v. City of Long Beach , 307 A.D.2d 313, 313–314, 762 N.Y.S.2d 425 [2d Dept. 2003], appeal dismissed 1 N.Y.3d 535, 775 N.Y.S.2d 232, 807 N.E.2d 282 [2003], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 601, 782 N.Y.S......
-
In re Kaur v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 08976 (N.Y. App. Div. 12/3/2009)
...such as zoning defects rendering the property unusable or insufficiently sized or configured lots. Matter of Haberman v. City of Long Beach, 307 A.D.2d 313, 762 N.Y.S.2d 425 (2d Dept. 2003), appeal dismissed, 1 NY3d 535, 775 N.Y.S.2d 232, 807 N.E.2d 282 (2003), cert. dismissed, 543 U.S. 108......
-
One Point St., Inc. v. City of Yonkers Indus. Dev. Agency
..., 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 ; Matter of Haberman v. City of Long Beach , 307 A.D.2d 313, 314, 762 N.Y.S.2d 425 ; see also Kelo v. New London , 545 U.S. 469, 477–490, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 ). The agency's stated purpo......
-
Court St. Dev. Project, LLC v. Utica Urban Renewal Agency
...so as to support the taking of vacant and underutilized properties located therein (see Matter of Haberman v. City of Long Beach , 307 A.D.2d 313, 313-314, 762 N.Y.S.2d 425 [2d Dept. 2003], appeal dismissed 136 N.Y.S.3d 591 1 N.Y.3d 535, 775 N.Y.S.2d 232, 807 N.E.2d 282 [2003], lv denied 3 ......