Eminent Domain Law

Landowner Not Entitled to Value As if Zoned for' Higher Density

In re City of New York v. Zahav, LLC

NYLJ 5/6/13, p. 20, Col. 1

AppDiv, First Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

'

In a condemnation proceeding, landowner appealed from Supreme Court's determination to value property as if zoned in an M 1-5 district rather than as if zoned for the higher density uses permitted to neighboring landowners. The Appellate Division modified with respect to one parcel, but otherwise affirmed, holding that the city had not retained the M 1-5 zoning merely to depress the condemnation value of landowner's land.

As part of a redevelopment plan for the Hudson Yards area, the City of New York rezoned much of the area to permit a high-density, mixed-use expansion of the Midtown Central Business District. The redevelopment plan also entailed condemning the subject land for development of a park and boulevard. When the city rezoned neighboring land, it did not rezone the subject land, but left it in an M 1-5 district. Landowner argued that, for condemnation purposes, its land should have been valued as if it were in a higher density district, and that the city had failed to rezone its land simply to make it less expensive to acquire in condemnation proceedings. Supreme Court, after a nonjury trial, rejected landowner's contention.

In upholding Supreme Court's determination, the Appellate Division noted that in the absence of the redevelopment plan, the subject parcel would have retained its M 1-5 designation. In the absence of that plan, none of the area would have been rezoned. Under those circumstances, the city had properly valued landowner's land as zoned before the plan was adopted.

Supreme Court had determined that one parcel should have been valued as if zoned in a C 6-3 district, but the court modified that determination to value part of the parcel as if zoned in a C 6-4 district because of the city's zoning regulations governing split-zoned parcels.

'

Landowner Not Entitled to Value As if Zoned for' Higher Density

In re City of New York v. Zahav, LLC

NYLJ 5/6/13, p. 20, Col. 1

AppDiv, First Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

'

In a condemnation proceeding, landowner appealed from Supreme Court's determination to value property as if zoned in an M 1-5 district rather than as if zoned for the higher density uses permitted to neighboring landowners. The Appellate Division modified with respect to one parcel, but otherwise affirmed, holding that the city had not retained the M 1-5 zoning merely to depress the condemnation value of landowner's land.

As part of a redevelopment plan for the Hudson Yards area, the City of New York rezoned much of the area to permit a high-density, mixed-use expansion of the Midtown Central Business District. The redevelopment plan also entailed condemning the subject land for development of a park and boulevard. When the city rezoned neighboring land, it did not rezone the subject land, but left it in an M 1-5 district. Landowner argued that, for condemnation purposes, its land should have been valued as if it were in a higher density district, and that the city had failed to rezone its land simply to make it less expensive to acquire in condemnation proceedings. Supreme Court, after a nonjury trial, rejected landowner's contention.

In upholding Supreme Court's determination, the Appellate Division noted that in the absence of the redevelopment plan, the subject parcel would have retained its M 1-5 designation. In the absence of that plan, none of the area would have been rezoned. Under those circumstances, the city had properly valued landowner's land as zoned before the plan was adopted.

Supreme Court had determined that one parcel should have been valued as if zoned in a C 6-3 district, but the court modified that determination to value part of the parcel as if zoned in a C 6-4 district because of the city's zoning regulations governing split-zoned parcels.

'