122 A.D.3d 859
N.Y. App. Div.2014Background
- Vacant 19,500 sq ft Staten Island property designated wetlands; City acquired it June 11, 2007 for Phase 4 of New Creek Bluebelt.
- Trial court found wetlands regulations gave reasonable probability of a regulatory taking and applied a 75% increment.
- Trial court accepted City’s $723,000 extraordinary development costs; rejected claimant’s $62,000 claim.
- Claimants sought $1,090,000 as just compensation; court awarded $810,000.
- Court held property’s highest and best use is undeveloped due to regulations; value diminished by 82%.
- City and claimants appealed; appellate court affirms in part and amends? final decree consistent with rulings on increment and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wetlands regulations created a regulatory taking | Paolella assert statutory taking due to 82% value loss and prohibition of use | City contends no taking as diminution alone not enough | Yes, there was a reasonable probability of a regulatory taking |
| Appropriateness of applying a 75% increment | Claimants urged 75% premium reflecting redevelopment potential | City proposed ~41% increment | 75% increment supported by evidence; not the City’s 41% figure |
| Allowance of extraordinary development costs | Claimants argued for $62,000 | City supported $723,000 | Court properly approved $723,000 as extraordinary costs |
| Final compensation amount | Sought higher than $810,000 | Sought lower; adopted 810,000 | Final award of $810,000 affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. State of New York, 103 AD2d 211 (2d Dept 1984) (regulatory taking analysis and factors under Penn Central)
- Berwick v. State of New York, 107 AD2d 79 (2d Dept 1985) (regulatory taking and improper use of increments)
- Estate of Berwick v. State of New York, 159 AD2d 544 (2d Dept 1990) (application of premium for redevelopment potential)
- de St. Aubin v. Flacke, 68 NY2d 66 (1986) (heavy burden to prove taking; factors for regulation impact)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (three-factor takings framework and economic impact)
- County of Suffolk v. Firester, 37 N.Y.2d 649 (1975) (modest premium basis for value increments)
- Village of Haverstraw v. AAA Electricians, Inc., 114 A.D.3d 955 (2d Dept 2014) (evidentiary basis for increment in valuation)
- Putnam County National Bank v. City of New York, 37 A.D.3d 575 (2d Dept 2007) (standards for compensation and regulatory impact)