Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How closely will New York courts scrutinize exercises of the eminent domain power? Until recently, courts have been quite deferential when entities clothed with eminent domain power have determined that private property is necessary for public use. Two recent decisions, however, suggest that there are limits to that deference.
|Article I, Section 7, of The New York State Constitution, like the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, provides that "[p]rivate property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." At the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has transformed the "public use" requirement into a "public purpose" requirement; so long as the condemnor can conjure up a public purpose for the taking, the condemnor does not have to demonstrate that the property will be open to the public. The Court had abandoned any requirement that the condemnor show use the public as early as 1906 in Strickley v. Bay Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, and the Court reaffirmed that position in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, where it sustained a taking for economic development purposes. In Kelo, Justice Stevens also indicated that the Court would defer to the condemning authority on another issue: what land does the condemnor need to accomplish the public purpose.
The New York Court of Appeals took a similar deferential approach in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 13 N.Y.3d 511. In upholding condemnation to facilitate the Atlantic Yards development, the court concluded first that removal of urban blight is a proper predicate for exercise of the eminent domain power, and second, that when the condemnor determines that blight exists, courts will not re-examine that determination unless it would be irrational and baseless. The court took the same approach in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 15 NY3d 235, sustaining condemnation of the Manhattanville neighborhood to facilitate Columbia University's expansion. As in Goldstein, the condemnor had based its decision to condemn on the need to remove blight in the neighborhood, and conducted a study designed to demonstrate that blighted conditions existed. The Court of Appeals was unwilling to second-guess the study's blight determination.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
End of year collections are crucial for law firms because they allow them to maximize their revenue for the year, impacting profitability, partner distributions and bonus calculations by ensuring outstanding invoices are paid before the year closes, which is especially important for meeting financial targets and managing cash flow throughout the firm.
Law firms and companies in the professional services space must recognize that clients are conducting extensive online research before making contact. Prospective buyers are no longer waiting for meetings with partners or business development professionals to understand the firm's offerings. Instead, they are seeking out information on their own, and they want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Through a balanced approach that combines incentives with accountability, firms can navigate the complexities of returning to the office while maintaining productivity and morale.
The paradigm of legal administrative support within law firms has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade. But this begs the question: are the changes to administrative support successful, and do law firms feel they are sufficiently prepared to meet future business needs?
Counsel should include in its analysis of a case the taxability of the anticipated and sought after damages as the tax effect could be substantial.