August 17, 2008
In Courier-Life, "Yards foes" find journalistic confusion
Atlantic Yards Report looks at the latest brutally weird exchange between Daniel Goldstein and Courier-Lifer Stephen Witt. Goldstein writes a letter to the editor correcting one of Witt's articles, which was riddled with mistakes. Witt fires back by asking Goldstein questions...in print. Atlantic Yards Report breaks it all down for Mr. Witt:
The eminent domain litigation, first filed in federal court but ultimately dismissed, leading to a successor case filed in state court, is unrelated to the case challenging the environmental review, which was filed in state court and remains under appeal.
Why was it filed in the Appellate Division rather than in the lower-level trial court? That's what state law requires. According to Article 2, §207 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law:
Judicial review. (A) Any person or persons jointly or severally, aggrieved by the condemnor's determination and findings made pursuant to section two hundred four of this article, may seek judicial review thereof by the appellate division of the supreme court...
As for whether "opponents... filed yet another legal petition trying to stop the project," Goldstein's technically right. However, Witt and others can point to intertwining motives; DDDB, while not a plaintiff, has organized and helped fund the eminent domain case. And people contributing to DDDB's legal fund are doing so not to help individual plaintiffs but rather to block or change the project.
Posted by amy at August 17, 2008 11:06 AM