« We're worried about Daily Intelligencer | Main | KIDD GETS LITTLE HELP DURING CRUNCH TIME »
May 18, 2007
Reporter Report
The triple bogey scored by Daily Intelligencer — yesterday, the online column/blog reported the wrong plaintiffs, wrong court and wondered if that meant the demise of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn — made us wonder, how did the rest of the press corps do?
We assembled a star-studded panel of media noodges watchdogs, Daniel Goldstein from Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and Norman Oder of Atlantic Yards Report, and asked them if anyone in the media got it right (boo-boos in bold, expert watchdogs in bold-italic).
 |
NY1, Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Filed By Atlantic Yards Development Opponents
A State Supreme Court Judge dismissed a lawsuit Thursday that challenged the state's use of eminent domain in obtaining land for the project.
The judge ruled the suit should have been filed in the State Court of Appeals instead.
The suit was filed by tenants in danger of being kicked out of their homes.
Tenants say they now plan to file in the Appeals Court as suggested.
Daniel Goldstein: Wrong, it's the "Appellate Division."
[The online version has been corrected to read "Appellate Division" instead of "Appeals Court."]
 |
NY Times (Metro Briefs), Brooklyn: Atlantic Yards Suit Filed in Wrong Court
A judge yesterday dismissed a lawsuit filed by tenants challenging the Atlantic Yards construction project, saying they had filed their suit in the wrong court. The suit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, accused the Empire State Development Corporation, the state agency that shepherded the project to approval, of offering an unfair package of provisions to relocate tenants at two buildings in Brooklyn, 473 Dean Street and 634 Pacific Street. Justice Walter B. Tolub said the suit should have been filed directly in the Appellate Division of Supreme Court. A. J. Carter, a spokesman for the development corporation, said the agency was pleased with the decision. George Locker, a lawyer for the tenants, said he would file his suit in the appellate court even though he believed the Supreme Court had jurisdiction.
Norman Oder: Unfair relocation/comparable housing is subject of pending suit already in Appellate Division, as I wrote.
[Word from the attorney for the plaintiffs is that the Times will run a correction.]
 |
NY Post, ATLANTIC YDS. SUIT REJECTED
A lawsuit challenging the state's use of eminent domain to make way for Bruce Ratner's $4 billion Atlantic Yards project was dismissed by a state Supreme Court Judge yesterday.
A Manhattan judge ruled on a technicality against rent-stabilized tenants in danger of being booted out of their homes in Brooklyn to help make way for an NBA arena and 16 skyscrapers, saying the Appellate Division has jurisdiction over condemnation matters.
The plaintiffs, who live in buildings on Dean and Pacific streets in Prospect Heights, felt they weren't offered comparable housing by the state. An Empire State Development Corp. spokesman said the agency was "pleased" by the decision. Ratner's firm declined comment.
[See Norman Oder's comments above.]
So that's 0-for-4 (Intelligencer included). Project critics have been on the media's case to at least send reporters to cover the legal procedings in this historic and controversial project. The daily press has resisted on the grounds that nothing actually gets decided during oral arguments.
Today's articles are evidence that by not paying attention to legal proceedings, they have no clue what's going on.
Word to the media: there have been several lawsuits filed, more than your readers realize. You should feel free to use Norman Oder's Atlantic Yards Report as a crib sheet to catch up; we all do.
We do thank you for playing, though, and have some wonderful consolation prizes in the back.
Posted by lumi at May 18, 2007 6:12 PM