Navigation

Archive | Regulatory Taking

February 9, 2017

MUIR V. WISCONSIN “PARCEL AS A WHOLE” DOCTRINE SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

The United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument of the Muir case for March 20, 2017.  The case involved a regulatory taking claim which was premised on the adoption of a zoning ordinance which required a minimum “net project area.”  This resulted in the inability to develop or sell the contiguous parcel.  There were two parcels which although owned by the same owner and contiguous were purchased separately at different times for different purposes.  By itself the other lot would be grandfathered under the zoning law, but not when… read more

By
Posted in Inverse Condemnation, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

December 14, 2016

SUPREMACY CLAUSE? WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING SUPREMACY CLAUSE!

On December 7, 2016, the Appellate Division, Second Department handed down Monroe Equities, LLC v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08206.  The decision affirmed the dismissal of a claim for damages based on the contention that the application of watershed regulations precluding the right to install a septic system constituted a per se taking under Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution because claimant was deprived of all economically beneficial use of its property…. read more

By
Posted in Recent cases, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

August 18, 2016

Regulatory Taking and Inverse Condemnation: Taxi Medallions and Wetland Building Permits

In two separate decisions on August 15, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected regulatory taking and inverse condemnation claims. The first decision is about the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission’s (“TLC”) commitment to “adopt regulations requiring that half of the city’s more than 13,000 yellow cabs be accessible to people with disabilities within six years.”  Singh v. Joshi, 152 F. Supp. 3d 112 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). The plaintiffs are three individual TLC medallion holders who argued that, among other things, the… read more

By
Posted in Eminent Domain, Inverse Condemnation, Recent cases, Regulatory Taking, Wetlands
Read more > 0

June 8, 2016

Update on the Grand Central Terminal Air Rights Takings Litigation

On September 28, 2015, Plaintiffs Midtown TDR Ventures LLC and Midtown GCT Ventures LLC, the owners of Grand Central Terminal, brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York, the City Council, and private real estate developer SL Green Realty Corporation, and argued that the May 27, 2015, Vanderbilt Corridor rezoning effected a taking of Plaintiffs’ transferable development rights, or air rights, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Unused air rights have… read more

By
Posted in Inverse Condemnation, New York, Regulatory Taking, Zoning
Read more > 0

February 23, 2016

New York Law Journal: Inverse Condemnation or De Facto Taking – What’s in the Name?

Michael Rikon authored a column in the February 23, 2016, edition of the New York Law Journal titled, “Inverse Condemnation or De Facto Taking: What’s in the Name?  In his article, Mr. Rikon discusses the difference between inverse condemnations and de facto takings, and that courts err in interchangeably using these terms. Mr. Rikon reviews the four different categories of inverse condemnations, also known as regulatory takings.  Mr. Rikon covers Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., 544 U.S. 528 (2005), United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), Lucas v. South Carolina… read more

By
Posted in Eminent Domain, Inverse Condemnation, Regulatory Taking, Uncategorized, Wetlands
Read more > 0