Articles Posted in Municipal Law

Published on:

By

It has been a year since amendments to the State Freedom of Information Law required that government agencies in New York provide a specific date by which records shall be provided to the public. Under the amendment to the Public Officers Law, if records cannot be provided within twenty business days, the party requesting the records must be given a date by which the records shall be provided. But as noted in the popular media (http://www.star-gazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060322/OPINION01/603220340/1004) lack of responsiveness by government agencies continues to be an ongoing issue.

One solution that has passed the New York State Assembly and is pending in the Senate is to give some teeth to the penalty for failure to comply with the law by making it easier to recover attorney fees by those who successfully sue to obtain public information (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi). Under the present law a court must find that the records sought were of interest to the general public. Under the proposed law fees shall be awarded if the court finds there was no reasonable basis for denying access to the records regardless of the nature of the records. Apparently the hope is that this will encourage government agencies to be more responsive and less arbitrary in delaying and denying access to public records.

Published on:

By

A sharply divided New York Court of Appeals upheld the position of New York City Mayor Bloomberg who refused to enforce the City’s Equal Benefits Law. On February 14, 2006, in the case the Matter of Council of the City of New York v. Bloomberg (http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_01111.htm) the Court held that the Equal Benefits Law was pre-empted by State and Federal Law. The Equal Benefits Law required that contracts awarded by the City in excess of $100,000 be made only to contractors who provided equal benefits to the domestic partners and spouses of employees.

In the first instance the Court held that that the issue of validity of the local law could be raised by the Mayor in defense of an Article 78 proceeding by the City Council seeking to compel him to enforce the law. The Court held that the Mayor acted properly in refusing to enforce a law he felt was invalid. It then determined that the law was at odds with, among other statutes, section 103 of the General Municipal Law which requires the award of contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. The majority stated that, as written, the law could violate the intention of the competitive bidding statute. For example, contract specifications could be drafted to favor contractors who provided specific benefits. Such requirements, the Court held, do not foster the purpose of the statute, which is to save money for the municipality.

In a dissent by Judge Rosenblatt, joined in by two other judges, he argued that the actions of the Mayor violated the doctrine of separation of powers. Judge Rosenblatt stated that the executive is required to carry out the law until a court declares it invalid and should not unilaterally refuse to carry out a legislative act. He argued that a defense in an Article 78 proceeding is not the proper vehicle for challenging a local law.

Published on:

By

At the present time there are 28 bills pending in the New York State Assembly and Senate related to condemnation of private property by government entities. The bills range from comprehensive revisions of the eminent domain law in New York to minor changes directed at specific aspects of the law. Clearly a reaction to last year’s decision by the United States Supreme Court, some of the proposed legislation, if adopted, will have a substantial impact on eminent domain for years to come. While many people believe the law requires reform, others are concerned that an over reaction will result in hampering revitalization of municipalities throughout the State.

The pending legislation, as listed on the New York State Assembly site, is listed below:

A00372 Provides for giving of just compensation upon the taking of any billboard

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded the case of Davis v. Town of Hempstead to the district court. The challenge involves actions taken in accordance with a local law that appears similar to many other local laws in New York State. Therefore the ultimate decision in this case may have serious implications for many municipalities in New York, as well as having the potential to add fuel to the already heated discourse over individual property rights.

The case involves a claim by a property owner that the Town of Hempstead violated his constitutional rights when it removed a structure on his property. The Town had declared the structure unsafe and ordered its repair or removal. The action was taken after the structure was certified as unsafe by an architect retained by the Town and the plaintiff was given notice and an opportunity to respond. When the property owner failed to repair or remove the structure the Town had the structure removed.

The District Court had granted the Town summary judgment. The Court found that this case involved actions that were part of a series of earlier actions previously upheld by the court and therefore the issues had already been decided (res judicata). The Circuit Court concluded that the incident complained of had occurred a year after the actions that were adjudicated in the earlier case. Therefore, the Circuit Court held the removal of the structure was not part of the same incident that resulted in the prior determination and remanded the case to the District Court for further action.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court decided a trilogy of cases on December 27, 2005 relating to a series of determinations by the City of New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals to permit construction of an addition to a local religious institution. The cases, Halperin v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Richmond v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals and Halperin v. City of New Rochelle broke little new ground but are significant in that together they cover a number of issues related to variances, the standard of review of determinations by zoning boards, the deference accorded religious uses and standards for review under SEQRA, including cumulative impacts and when a supplemental environmental impact statement is required.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the decisions is the holding in Halperin v. City of New Rochelle that a variance for off street parking is an area variance when the proposed uses are otherwise permitted as of right. One argument had been that a variance for off street parking was a use variance requiring the more exacting standards for the granting of use variances. Agreement by the Court with this somewhat novel contention would have made many variance requests, that are otherwise routinely granted, extremely difficult to obtain.

Another potentially significant aspect of the ruling is the Court’s view of cumulative impact review. The Court also held that SEQRA does not mandate a review of cumulative impacts of other nearby developments when those developments are unrelated and not part of a common overall development plan.

Published on:

By

On December 5, 2005 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case of Brody v. Village of Port Chester back to the District Court on the issue of whether Brody had actual notice of the proceedings and procedures under New York Eminent Domain Procedure Law (“EDPL”) before his property was condemned by the Village. In a case that has been bouncing between the District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals since the year 2000, the Second Circuit ruled that the EDPL’s procedure for determining whether a decision to condemn property for public use met constitutional muster. However, the Court determined that the notice provisions that existed prior to 2004 were flawed in that they failed to provide notice of the thirty day time limit for challenging a determination that the purpose of a condemnation was for a public use.

On its face the decision would appear to be limited to the facts of this case, as the Court noted the statute, as subsequently amended in 2004, now meets constitutional due process requirements. Yet, the decision of the Court raises interesting issues for other municipal land use determinations. The Court held “the notice sent to affected property owners must make some conspicuous mention of the commencement of the thirty-day review period to satisfy due process”. Does this mean that other land use determinations that implicate property rights must also contain notice of the commencement of a short statute of limitations in addition to the notice of decision required by statute?

Published on:

By

A Long Island jury (Noghrey v. Town of Brookhaven) granted a verdict of 1.6 million dollars against the Town of Brookhaven as a result of the rezoning of two parcels of land. The property, which had been zoned to permit shopping center uses was rezoned and the owner claimed this resulted in a loss of value.

While the presiding judge had ruled that the property owner had not lost all economically viable use of his land, he allowed the jury to reach a verdict on the issue of a regulatory taking based upon a loss of investment backed expectations. The property owner had purchased the two parcels in order to develop the properties for retail uses. The court apparently instructed the jury that it needed to only find by a perponderance of the evidence that there had been a loss of investment backed expectations.

This descision seems to run contrary to a long standing rule in New York that a property owner has no vested right in the potential use of her property. Municipalities have been permited to rezone property as long as the land owner has not established that there has been a substantial expenditure in furtherance of the development of the property for a specific use. In Magee v. Town of Orangetown, which is perhaps the leading case on this issue, the property owner had invested millions in developing the property when its permits were revoked and the property was rezoned. In that case the New York Court of Appeals upheld a judgment against the town for a regulatory taking.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The President of the New York State Bar Association has established a task force to study New York’s Eminent Domain Law in the wake of the controversy created by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London this year. The holding by the Court that municipalities may use their eminent domain powers to take private property for economic development has prompted calls by members of the New York State Legislature to curb local authority to condemn property. In addition, members of Congress have suggested that projects with federal funding should be barred from using eminent domain powers.

What seems to be missing from the discussion is the fact that the Kelo case really did not break any new ground. Municipalities have been using eminent domain to build railroads, revitalize business districts or improve housing stock for about one hundred years. Following the end of World War II urban renewal became a major force for revitalization and condemnation was a significant tool for implementing these programs. It seems the Kelo decision has merely raised the collective consciousness about the use of eminent domain.

The thought that someone can have their home taken so that a private developer can build a supermarket or an office building has outraged many. Yet, the aim of these projects is to create jobs and improve the overall quality of life in these communities. Since the U.S. Constitution only requires that just compensation be paid, the actual rules governing the details of eminent domain powers are governed by state law. Therefore it will be up to the legislatures of States, such as New York, that permit broader use of condemnation authority to examine whether “public purpose” should continue to include the economic redevelopment of communities.

Published on:

By

Holding that a meeting held at which one of the members required for a quorum attended by telephone was invalid the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court ruled that the equalization rate for six Westchester Communities was improperly established in the Matter of the Town of Eastchester v. The State Board of Real Property Tax Services (http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_08732.htm).

The State Board of Real Property Tax Services fixes the equalization rate for municiplities which serves as the basis for determining the rate at which properties in that municipality will be taxed. The Board is required to consist of five members. At the time of the determination at issue the Board had only four members, one member was absent and one member attended the meeting by telephone. Until recently the New York General Construction Law section 41 provided that for any government agency or board to conduct business a majority of the total number of members must be present in the same place. An amendment to that law in 2000 created a single exception permitting attendance by video conference. In finding that the Board did not act at a legal meeting the Court noted that had the legislature intended to include telephonic attendance it would have done so when the amendment permitting video confernces was adopted.

Since a quorum of the Board required three members to be in attendance at the same place or by video conference, the Court found that the meeting held by teleconference violated the General Construction Law. The Court invalidated the rates and sent the matter back to the Board for reconsideration. The practical result may be that the same rates will be set by a quorum of the Board at a new meeting.

Contact Information
120 White Plains Rd #305
Tarrytown, NY 10591
Phone: 914.682.0707 Fax: 914.682.0708
A 7 minute drive to downtown White Plains
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2024, Silverberg Zalantis LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design