Sunrise Properties, Inc. v. Jamestown Urban Renewal Agency

• Decision Date: 15 July 1994
• Citation: 614 N.Y.S.2d 841,206 A.D.2d 913
• Parties: SUNRISE PROPERTIES, INC., and The Penn Traffic Company, Petitioners, v. JAMESTOWN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 841

614 N.Y.S.2d 841

206 A.D.2d 913

SUNRISE PROPERTIES, INC., and The Penn Traffic Company, Petitioners, v. JAMESTOWN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

July 15, 1994.

Donovan, Leisure, Newton and Irvine by Kenneth Hart, New York City, Johnson, Peterson, Tener and Anderson by Kenneth Hart, Jamestown, for petitioners.

Sotir and Goldman by Mark Hampton, Jamestown, for respondent.

Before DENMAN, P.J., and GREEN, BALIO, WESLEY and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Petitioners contend that respondent's condemnation of their property did not serve a public use, benefit or purpose. We disagree. EDPL 207 is a summary proceeding in which the scope of review is expressly limited to, among other relevant factors, whether a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition (Matter of Waldo's, Inc. v. Village of Johnson City, 74 N.Y.2d 718, 720, 544 N.Y.S.2d 809, 543 N.E.2d 74; Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 418, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 494 N.E.2d 429). If an adequate basis for a determination is shown "and the objector cannot show that the determination was 'without foundation', the agency's determination should be confirmed" (Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., supra, at 425, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 494 N.E.2d 429, quoting Long Is. R.R. Co. v. Long Is. Light. Co., 103 A.D.2d 156, 168, 479 N.Y.S.2d 355, affd. 64 N.Y.2d 1088, 489 N.Y.S.2d 881, 479 N.E.2d 226; see, Matter of Waldo's, Inc. v. Village of Johnson City, supra; Matter of Neptune Assocs. v. Consolidated Edison Co., 125 A.D.2d 473, 509 N.Y.S.2d 574). Respondent determined that condemnation of the property would create jobs, provide infrastructure, and possibly stimulate new private sector economic development. Those findings establish that the condemnation serves a public benefit.

The fact that a private party will benefit from respondent's condemnation does not invalidate the determination "so long as the public purpose is dominant" (Matter of Waldo's, Inc. v. Village of Johnson City, supra, 74 N.Y.2d at 721, 544 N.Y.S.2d 809, 543 N.E.2d 74; see, Yonkers Community Dev. Agency v. Morris, 37 N.Y.2d 478, 373 N.Y.S.2d 112, 335 N.E.2d 327). The emphasis on the impact that the condemnation will have on petitioners' business is misplaced. Our review is limited to whether community benefit will be the dominant result of the project (see, Matter of Waldo's, Inc. v. Village of Johnson City, su...