Author Archive | Michael Rikon

California Supreme Court Grants Review in Property Reserve Case

In our June 5, 2014 posting we reported a significant California Case, Property Reserve, Inc v Superior Court, 224 Cal. App. 4th 828 (2014). In Property Reserve, the Third District California Court of Appeal ruled that entry statutes are unconstitutional when the activities for which entry is sought constitute an intentional taking of property without the full protections offered by a condemnation action. For separate reasons, the Court of Appeal found that both the geological and environmental studies would effect a taking or intentional damage of property; thus the filing… read more

Posted in Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain Abuse, Entry Statutes, Future of the law
Read more > 0

Condemnors Acting Badly, Another Installment

It is a straight forward concept. If you exercise your power of eminent domain, you must, under our Federal and State Constitutions, pay just compensation. Section 101 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (“EDPL”) states that it is the purpose of the EDPL “to assure that just compensation shall be paid to the persons whose property rights are acquired by the exercise of the power of eminent domain.” The same provision requires payments to property owners to be expedited. The policy, set forth in section 301 requires the condemnor to… read more

Posted in Eminent Domain Abuse, Title vesting, Trade fixtures, Valuation
Read more > 2

California Court of Appeals Holds Entry Statute Unconstitutional

In a recent case, Property Reserve, Inc. v Superior Court, 224 Cal.App.4th 828 (2014), the Third District California Court of Appeal ruled that entry statutes are unconstitutional when the activities for which the entry is sought constitute an intentional taking of property without the full protections afforded by a condemnation action. More specifically, the Court ruled that the pre-entry condemnation statutes, (found in Code of Civil Procedure sections 1245.010 et seq.) violate the takings provisions of article I, section 19 of the California Constitution. These entry statutes were enacted in 1976 and… read more

Posted in Challenging condemnation, Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain Abuse, Future of the law, Recent cases
Read more > 0

Appellate Division Second Department Renders Important Decision in Mazur Brothers

The Appellate Division, Second Department, handed down a decision on May 21, 2014, effectively ending 8 years of litigation and awarding compensation to the Claimants, Mazur Brothers Realty, LLC. Mazur Brothers Realty LLC were the fee owner of property located at 80 Lake Street and 90 Lake Street, White Plains, New York. Mazur Brothers, Inc., was the tenant at both properties and operated a well-known furniture business on the premises prior to title vesting. The property was taken in connection with a project to improve the Cross Westchester Expressway. Litigation… read more

Posted in Eminent Domain, New York, Offer & Compensation, Recent cases, Trade fixtures
Read more > 0

Recent Decision Values Atlantic Yards Property at 9 Million

Recent Decision Values Atlantic Yards Property at 9 Million Goldstein, Rikon, Rikon & Houghton recently received a decision awarding one of its clients $9,186,000, plus interest, for damages resulting from a fee taking which occurred on March 1, 2010 in connection with the Atlantic Yards development project. The property consisted of a 20,738 square foot lot, with frontage on Atlantic Avenue and a rear lot adjoining the Long Island Railroad tracks. The property was zoned M1-1 and was vacant at the time of title vesting. The case was tried by… read more

Posted in Eminent Domain, Highest and Best Use, New York, Recent cases
Read more > 0