Richards v. Tompkins County
Decision Date | 03 March 2011 |
Parties | In the Matter of Louise G. RICHARDS et al., Petitioners, v. Tompkins COUNTY, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
82 A.D.3d 1323
In the Matter of Louise G. RICHARDS et al., Petitioners,
v.
Tompkins COUNTY, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
March 3, 2011.
Mahlon R. Perkins, P.C., Dryden (Mahlon R. Perkins of counsel), for petitioners.
Jonathan Wood, County Attorney, Ithaca, for respondent.
Before: PETERS, J.P., LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.
GARRY, J.
Proceeding initiated in this Court pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination of respondent's Legislature which condemned portions of petitioners' real property to reconstruct a public highway.
Petitioners own real property in Tompkins County located along County Road 109, also known as Hanshaw Road. Respondent determined that a portion of that road had become deteriorated and unsafe, so it developed a plan (hereinafter the project), through its consultants, to improve and resurface that portion and to construct a sidewalk. As the project required respondent to acquire property along the roadway, respondent published notice of a public hearing in the local newspaper ( see EDPL 202[A] ), mailed notice to 78 property owners ( see EDPL 202[C] ), and conducted a public hearing in March 2010. Respondent subsequently identified 15 additional property owners who would be affected by the project. In June 2010, these owners were served with written notice of the prior public hearing and other project-related information. At a special
The statute limits this Court's scope of review "to whether the proceeding was constitutional, whether the acquisition was within the condemnor's statutory authority, whether the determination was made in accordance with the statutory procedures and whether a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition" ( Matter of Broadway Schenectady Entertainment v. County of Schenectady, 288 A.D.2d 672, 672-673, 732 N.Y.S.2d 703 [2001]; accord. Matter of Davis Holding Co., LLC v. Village of Margaretville, 55 A.D.3d 1101, 1102, 865 N.Y.S.2d 736 [2008]; see EDPL 207[C] ). Petitioners contend that the determination of respondent's Legislature was not rendered in accord with statutory procedures because timely notice of the public hearing was not served upon all affected "assessment record billing owner[s]" (EDPL 202[C][1]; see EDPL 103[B-1]; 202[C] [2] ).
Failure to publish notice of a public hearing in the manner required by EDPL 202(A) is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates subsequent eminent domain proceedings even when it is inadvertent ( see Matter of New Life Fellowship v. City of Cortland, 175 A.D.2d 343, 344, 572 N.Y.S.2d 421 [1991] ). In contrast, the "[i]nadvertent failure to notify a person or persons entitled to notice under [EDPL 202]" is not jurisdictional and does not affect the validity of a condemnor's title (EDPL 202[D]; see Matter of Erie Blvd. Hydropower, L.P. v. Stuyvesant Falls Hydro Corp., 30 A.D.3d 641, 643-644, 816 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2006], appeal dismissed 7 N.Y.3d 843, 823 N.Y.S.2d 771, 857 N.E.2d 66 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 718, 827 N.Y.S.2d 688, 860 N.E.2d 990 [2006]; Matter of New Life Fellowship v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Court St. Dev. Project, LLC v. Utica Urban Renewal Agency
...Realty Corp. v. City of New Rochelle , 181 A.D.3d 676, 678, 121 N.Y.S.3d 107 [2d Dept. 2020] ; Matter of Richards v. Tompkins County , 82 A.D.3d 1323, 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 234 [3d Dept. 2011] ). Petitioner's parcel was identified at the public hearing by its tax parcel identification number a......
-
Uncle Sam Garages, LLC v. Capital Dist. Transp. Auth.
...maps and property descriptions of the property to be acquired and adjacent parcels" ( EDPL 203 ; see Matter of Richards v. Tompkins County , 82 A.D.3d 1323, 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 234 [2011] ). Thereafter, attendees had "a reasonable opportunity to present an oral or written statement and to su......
-
Ithaca City Sch. Dist. v. City of Ithaca
... ... , J.Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mulvey, J.), entered April 2, 2010 in Tompkins County, which granted petitioner's application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article ... ...
-
City of Plattsburgh v. Weed
...was not properly published, and it is clear that Ford had actual notice of the proceedings ( see Matter of Richards v. Tompkins County, 82 A.D.3d 1323, 1324–1325, 918 N.Y.S.2d 234 [2011] ). The answer she interposed to the vesting proceeding did not assert among its various affirmative defe......