National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. McDonald
779 F.3d 97
2d Cir.2015Background
- Amtrak (a federally created corporation) owned rail-adjacent parcels needed for NYSDOT’s Bronx River Greenway project; negotiations over purchase/terms failed.
- NYSDOT initiated condemnation under New York’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL); a May 19, 2005 public hearing occurred after notice was sent to an incorrect address for Amtrak.
- NYSDOT published its condemnation findings in August 2005; Amtrak did not invoke EDPL judicial review or sue at that time and continued negotiations through 2008.
- NYSDOT filed notices of appropriation in February 2008 and title vested in the State; Amtrak later sought post‑taking sale terms but NYSDOT said title had already passed.
- Amtrak filed this Supremacy Clause (preemption) suit in April 2012 claiming federal law deprived NYSDOT of authority to condemn its property.
- The district court dismissed: alternatively on Eleventh Amendment grounds and as time‑barred; the Second Circuit affirmed on statute‑of‑limitations grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New York’s condemnation of Amtrak property is preempted by federal law (Supremacy Clause) | Amtrak: federal statutes governing Amtrak preempt state eminent domain authority, so takings were invalid | NYSDOT: state condemnation was valid under state law; immunity and timeliness defenses available | Court did not reach the merits; claim dismissed as time‑barred (and district court had held Eleventh Amendment barred relief against state officer) |
| Whether state officer (Commissioner) is immune under the Eleventh Amendment | Amtrak: sought relief against state official to vindicate federal rights (prospective relief exception) | Commissioner: Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state absent consent; immunity applies | Court treated immunity as waived for appeal but noted Eleventh Amendment could bar claims; affirmed on other grounds (statute of limitations) |
| Applicable limitations period and accrual date for Amtrak’s Supremacy Clause claim | Amtrak: limitations delayed by defective EDPL notice and continued negotiations; last taking (2008) triggers accrual; six‑year period applies | NYSDOT: claims accrued when Amtrak knew or should have known of the injury (2005); EDPL appeal periods and shorter statutes apply alternatively | Claims accrued at latest by August 2005 when findings were published; suit filed April 2012 is beyond six years and is time‑barred |
| Whether post‑taking entry/use by State creates an ongoing violation that tolls accrual | Amtrak: subsequent state entry/use and later appropriations were separate injuries restarting limitations | NYSDOT: completion of condemnation is the final act; subsequent use flows from vested title and does not restart accrual | Court held the injury accrued earlier (2005); later vesting/use did not restart the limitations period |
Key Cases Cited
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state absent consent)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (limits on federal court relief against state officials; Eleventh Amendment principles)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (prospective injunctive relief against state officers as exception to Eleventh Amendment)
- Va. Office for Protection & Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632 (clarifies scope of prospective relief against state officials)
- Veltri v. Bldg. Serv. 32B-J Pension Fund, 393 F.3d 318 (statute of limitations accrues when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
- Didden v. Village of Port Chester, [citation="173 F. App'x 931"] (eminent domain accrual date for limitations purposes)