« Overriding Broad Public Use in the Face of Bad Faith Blight: In re Parminder Kaur and Redeveloping Eminent Domain in New York State | Main | Fifth Annual Brooklyn Blogfest = first Absolut shillfest? »
June 8, 2010
Second look at Columbia eminent domain argument, with FAQ; will bad faith claim be the key? Also, law professors debate public use, land assembly
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder updates his observations of the Kaur v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp. case.
After watching the newly-posted webcast of the June 1 oral argument in the eminent domain case (Kaur v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp.) at the Court of Appeals regarding the Columbia University expansion, I've expanded and amended my original post, which was based solely on an audio file.
The 40-minute argument is well worth watching. Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) attorney John Casolaro, cerebral and persistent, seemed aggrieved when he had to defend weaker positions. The property owners' attorney, Norman Siegel, was about as passionate as you can get in the relatively restrained confines of an appellate court.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, with the help of a few colleagues, did a good job ensuring that the major issues are highlighted. (The Atlantic Yards oral argument got bogged down in places, by contrast.)
And Judge Robert Smith, the dissenter in the AY case (Goldstein v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp.), more than once played devil's advocate, challenging Siegel to convince him to vote to overturn the very recent precedent, set last November nine days before the Appellate Division, in a split decision, ruled against the ESDC.
Read the rest of this post which covers highlights from the hearing, the lack of coverage by New York City's three major daily papers, and a debate about eminent domain.
Posted by steve at June 8, 2010 9:08 AM