In case you haven’t heard, oral arguments in the state eminent domain case concerning Atlantic Yards are being held on Monday, February 23. The hearing will take place in a session that starts at 10AM at the Supreme Court, State of New York; Appellate Division, Second Department; 45 Monroe Place. Brooklyn, NY. The case is seventh on the docket, so it could be a long time before the hearing starts. The case is known as Daniel Goldstein et al v Empire State Development Corporation. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It is the most significant piece of remaining litigation concerning Atlantic Yards, but not the only one. There is more on the case at DDDB and Norman Oder does his usual brilliant job digging into the case in great detail on Atlantic Yards Report. He writes: “A decision could be issued within two months. Should the plaintiffs lose, they’d have several months to file an appeal to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. (Is the appeal discretionary, as I originally wrote? It’s mandatory if there’s a “substantial” constitutional question, but that’s a matter for debate.)” He calls the opponents’ chances of prevailing “a long shot.”
Oral Argument in Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case Monday
February 21st, 2009 · 2 Comments
Tags: Atlantic Yards · Eminent Domain · Uncategorized
2 responses so far ↓
1 dddb // Feb 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm
This:
“The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It is the most significant piece of remaining litigation concerning Atlantic Yards, but not the only one.”
Is not quite right. The legal challenge to the state’s environmental review and approval, and in particular the state’s determination that the project site is “blighted” is awaiting a ruling of an appeal. That was argued on September 17, 2008.
It is as significant as the eminent domain case in terms of the impact on the project. A ruling for plaintiffs in either case would mean the project could not go forward.
More about that EIS appeal is here:
http://dddb.net/FEIS/appeal
2 Peregrine // Feb 23, 2009 at 5:46 pm
“A ruling for plaintiffs in either case would mean the project could not go forward.”
Which also means a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs will mean the victims of DDDB will lose everything.
It is more likely that project will be stalled for years because of the economy not AYR’s and DDDB’s efforts. The victims have lived their lives under the ax when they could have had a lucrative buyout and bought homes.
Ratner will evict them to make the property buildable whether he sells or develops the property him self.
Either way DDDB’s victims lose.