7/30/2019 Eminent domain legal fee reimbursement decision

1/8

04/25/2013 16:32 FAX 17182981122 U001/008

.JAUvI.E A. RIOSASSOC , ATEJUST s CE

elEalzrt2011 tur6

NIP a . /J 1ittn,t5

SUPREME COURT CHAMBERSSUTPH]N BOULEVARO

2,8

FAXCompa

No. 732-

Hon. Jaime A. Rioone No.7181 298 1079

e:

ii

7/30/2019 Eminent domain legal fee reimbursement decision

2/8

,77Fr ?11 , BfiZre,,tv pr may/to- R. cgsouiVi &ictrk)' ' - ; L ) 73 z-

04/25/2013 16:32 FAX 17182981122002/008Appellate '31E1.. , taaittprante (Court 31 tittacthtp of :N vitt 3j!..12ni) anb 1114 3inattini Ttlistrica2A!ME A. RIOS SUPREME COURT CHAMBERS

as< I SOBERED BOULEVARDJAMAICA, NY 11453

(715? 298- 4Y79

Ai, 6 /, q 42_ /1.c; 1 4 / SSy 1C3 # N i c k 17 tetpz)

-7 . 2 _Hon. Jaime A. Rios. Justice[7181 298 1079

z;--

s y/ 7 c 7 , ` 654P7C / L. 1 e .FAXName:Company:Fax No.From:'Telephone No.Date:Pages:induding covenomments: L 2t,siMC P C

(1c.i)e,t47 s 6041611,- /

7/30/2019 Eminent domain legal fee reimbursement decision

3/8

04/25/2013 16:33 FAX 17182981122003/008Short Form OrderNEW YORE SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTSPresent: BOHORAELE JAIME R. RIOSA. PART E__

JusticeX .nds>JANICE SERRONE THE RALPH PATERNOum:r: 17214/12REVOCAB TRUST, THE NEW YORK 128REALTY CORPORATION, MIN JEAN REALTY,koticnLILO, MARCO NETRA, BROTTER JESUS AUTOat): January 23,_20135.0O8 COMPANY, SPEED MUFTLER AND TIRESHOP INC., and GONZALEZ MNFFLER AUTOeqpnceMECHANIC REPAIR CORPL,um(rs: 1, 2 and 3Petitidnprs,- against -

THE CITE CE NEW YORK,Respondent_

N .

The followina oapers numbered 1 to 14 be,: l on this - VerifiedNotice of BDRIE Section. 702(B) Claims by Petraioners for, interol8la re -krabursetbent for attorneys' fees and exheises, and motion t7Respondent the City of New York (the Ciby to ddsmiss thePetitioners' - Verified Notice of EPS* Sesticr 702(E) Claiffu " oralternatively, to dismiss all claims for feey (ought for work onmatters predating or otherwise unrelated. to t - E BORT crocess, andto convert this special proceeding loto a plpnary action or topermit discove -rm

PapersNumbered

Notice uf Petlnion -Verified No tice o f Clain -41ffidavdts-Ed4itidts.. .. .Notice of Petition-Verified. Notice ot Claim-AffiddvetstEnhibfts.,..-6StippLat , ot.. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . .Notice of Motion -Affidavits - Exhibits........,...,....,.............-12P:n owereng Affidavits -PxtAitnts. . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . .3-14.

Upon the foregoing papers it is ordpred that the motion Hsdetermined as follows:

This is a. special proceeding brought to oatsin reimbursementfo r costs, disbursements and exphnses slipn ediy incurred EyPetitioners under ( (.3702(E) of the ErEdnent 0:pain Procedure Law(EDPIT.Petitioners ara the owners. and tenants of e:smerclal properties

in a 20-acre area ef Willets Point, Queens.illets Point. is a

7/30/2019 Eminent domain legal fee reimbursement decision

4/8

04/25/2013 16:33 FAX 17182981122004/008predomnantly industria ste contaned ir.riangnar area ofapproxmaey 6 acres.n Septeffber 24, 233 and. Noveffber 13,2008, respentively, the New York City Planning Mammassion and CityCcunnl apprbmedtheWlles Pon Deveopmen. Pan (thePan), aproect to redeveop Wllets Pont for resderb.a, retal, hote,entertanment, and parkng uses, among otaer things, wthinfiastructure and other imptbvements to supaopt the redevelopment,The Citmintended to iffplement the. Plan an bnases, and proposedto acqure Petitioners properties and redevetp the 20-acre areaiowhch they arelocatedtoimpement PhaaeI, On. February 11,2011, theCty issuednoticeof apublic hearingunder Artice2 oftheEMPT toconsder apubic takngo Detitignars" property. Ondrarch 2, 2011, thepubic hearing Was heo. )n or about May2,2011, theCty issuedits determnationandfi rdngs that it was inthe public interest to acqmre the riunts to Paationers propettyand authorized its acqustion.OSJune2, 2011, thePetitionersiled a Petition wth theAppellate Divfsion, Second. Department, bursuE.di to FLIPL 207(A),seekng to annu and set asde the Ctya Dptermnation andFndngs. Briefs werefiledandthpmatter wa, maendaredfor oraatgument. On. May 2, 202, prior to the date schedued for theargument, theparties stipuatedthat: 8 [I]a (Dsderatin for thectys agreement not to proceed under :ien Determnation and.Fndngs, adoptedby theCtyon. May 2, 201Aoz to acqure anyptoperties by emnent doman under sahmmletitioners herebywthdTawths proceedng. Ths Sipuationis vachout preudcetothePeitioners right toseekany reief undue:: theEffHnen DomanProcedure Law Ths Sipuatioo is aso wthm preaudce to theCtys right to issue a newDetermnaton and Fndngs uponaompiancewth Artice2 of theMtinent Domar ProcedureLaw"The Petitioners subsequently commenced thi , speca proceedngseekng an order and judgment drecting thb Cty to remurse

PetiMthaners for the actual costs, disbursemends and expenses whichPetitioneds alege tPhay irffnarread as a resot of the Ctysabandoned acqusitioo procednre under MDPL "s.00 2(8.) and New YorkCty AdmnstrativeCode, Ttle5, Chapter 3, Mbchapter 1, Section5-313w

The City moves, inter aia,todsmss ths ,opeca proceedng,contendngthatfa)the Wllets Pont Pr:ject has not beenabandoned, and (b) MDPI, 702(B) doeouthorize payments whenthe, brocedutetoacqureproperty is abandon:8 prior toanEDPL,Artice 4 acqustion proceedng.In oppostion, Petitioners contend thdc Ae condemnation atissue has been abandoned and payments are aaPsdrized under EDPL

7/30/2019 Eminent domain legal fee reimbursement decision

5/8

04/25/2013 16:34 FAX 17182981122005/0087)T702(B) for fees and expenses inburren because of the acquisitionprocedure.EDPN 702(B) prnmtdes as follows-In i he event that the

prbcedure to acquire such property is abandorhg by the condemmor,or a court of competent jurisdiction determinEs that nhe condemnorwas not legally authorized to acquire the proper ty, or a portion ofsucb property, tho condemn= shall be oblige:12 d to reirCourse thecondemmee, an ambunt, separately computed an) stated, for actualand necessary costs, distmrsements and. :c: penses y including:reasonable attorney, appraisal and enmineerx 2 fees, and otherdamages actually inburred by such condemne because of theacquisition procedures.

With respect to the City's first contentM n that it. has not.abandoned the Millets Point Project, E32I, 140 provides a set cfdofimiMions of terms used fn the statute. The 3 ::rms "property" and"project" each has its own definition, ""Deab prppertm' ineludesall land and improvements," tETTPL 103 (E "'Public projebt"means any - prbgram cr: opoject for whicb acgpnsb .on of property maybe requixed for: a public use, benefit or purbc se" EDPI, 103(G)].Thus, by the plain language of the statute, t:n abandonment whichmay serms: to impose liability on the condemno: "or the condemmee'scosts, disbursements and. expbnmes is the apandonment of theprocedppe to acquire property in eminent dor lin rather than theabandonment of the underlying Project in furt)arance of whibh theprocedure to acquire property was instituted-

The City next. argues that EPPL :71 7 02 (E) toes not authorHnepayments to reimburse condefmees when the frecedure to acquireproperty is abandoned prior to an. FLED., Zrticle 4 vestingprbeeedingd

Generally, a two-step process is requpfd under: the EDPI,before a conMemnor acquires property in: emimem, domain (Matter ofCityy of New Theft [Grand Lafayette Props . L)C1, 6 N.Y,3d 540220061), Tn the first step the condeilltir firs ~ makes adetermination to condemn) the property aftem :necking the hearingand findings procedurea set. forth in of ELEJ mrtPfle 2. In thesebonM step, the condemner mpmt seek the tramMer of title to thebxopedty by commencing a judicial proceeding Eiown as a "vestingproceeding" pursuant to EDEtt article 4 (id_ = 543). Here, onlythe first of the two steps has beeo undertake) by the City.

'A person or corporation, whose property ds sought to be takenunder condemnation proceedings, is entitled J 7) he headd at every:step iu the process, and in justice shodid he )nmpensated not onlyfor the land or property taken, but. should be indemmified againstall cbsts and expenses reasonaMJy incupped eit:nr in resisting nhe

7/30/2019 Eminent domain legal fee reimbursement decision

6/8

04/25/2013 16:35 FAX 17182981122006/008appropriation or in the prx)ceedongs fr ascertanng thecompensation to be made" (Stooklyn v Long fstpoi Water-Supply.00148 NY 107, 109(18951), The court ac:v:ed that an extraalowanceshoudadb beenmadetotheowneb for defendngtheproceedngs tc acqgreits propEggri, but hed:kat thelower courthadnopowdr tomakesuch alowbncb intheatzEnbeahoy statutealowng it (ad, at 109)EDPL 502(B) was subsItquenly enacted, a[ardndbu limting

reiraburseinents to circumustanes where the coadamor has "abandoned"efforts vo aftxture the ptoberty, or where the court determnesthat the condemhor was not legaly authorted to acqure theproperty,"1 - 1 7 , is nog ettled that EORT2 702(E) pgthrigebs for reimbursementto the cembemnbe what successfully resists. a. "chiposeg acquisitionTat thefirst stepof theemnent donuenppoDoeas wherethecourtdeteaines tha thecondemnor was ro legalyt t.:h./prized to pursuetheproposedacqustion(Harget v, TownoT: 5:nderoga2, 13 N.Y,3d325 [2009). Pany fees and costs incuned by a. condebmbepursuant to EDP" 203 and. 204 are incurred because of theacgfumsbtion procedute'" (iM, at 330).Thequestionremahnb whether ECTI2 (1,7:2 (B) provides for

relmkg3u:soment to thb condemnee in circumstancbmahere the condemn=has "abandoned" theacqustionprocbduea 4: first step of theemnent dombbn procbbs.Generbllywan award of attorneys fees I; appropriate onywhe acontroversy has reachedits utimateo.fcbme(seeEkn,s vCneta Reaty, Inc., 61 AMDo2d 828 [2d Drt 19381; Enge vWofsohn, 38 Msc. 3d17[App. Temm 23. Dept :0121). Hbrb, the

3ccbtrogersya over the Ctx"s determhbti:o to acqure the:Petitioners property has reachbd its "uttate outcome." TheCtys agreement not to proceed unddr it[ determnation ergfihdngs toacqhrePetitioners property bv empnent damanis theequvaent of a successfu ohalehge to the craposed takng(seee.gd Matter of Vllage o f Copehhagemv. Teri:Jnn, 26 Msc. 3d1228 HAJ [Sup Ct, Lews County 2010l). Furtherrh(e, upon rescindingits determnation and findngs, the Cty is no longer authorizedtoacqurethegropertv in emnen doman Chms.res no apparentreason for alowngrembursement to the cor[lomgee at the firststepwherethecourt determnes that theconde[bor was not legalyauthbdited to pgrsub the proposed acquisition. og emnent dpmain andreects thecondemnors determnationandfindOngs whlebatringthesamereie tocondemgees ater thb. cormemz: stipuaes no toPursue the proposed acquisition in. emnent damaif and agrees not toproceed. onits determdnation. andfindngs, Moba)ver, thefact thatthe Petitioners stipuated to wthdtawthe F05" 207 proceedng

-4-

7/30/2019 Eminent domain legal fee reimbursement decision

7/8

04/25/2013 16:36 FAX 17182981122007/008does not inure to the benefit o.f the City, hEmpeciat ,y given theTguag of he stipulation whereintatesThis Stipulb:.hout prejudice to. the Petition& riot* to seek any reliefunbor tt.e. Eminent Domain. Procedure hew, " i(ssmuch as the onlyrelief remaining for Petitioners to seek is Mite reimbursement oftheir fees and expenses (see e.q, Matter of DU lage of Copenhagen2, 26 ?Lisp_ 31 1228(71, sacra).Accordingly, the branch of the motion br (he City to dismissthe. Petitioners' 'Verified. Notioe of EPPL Sec - on 702(2) Claighis denied.Alternaitvely, th.e City seeks,claims for fees sought for wor* on matters prunrelateb to the EERIE fbcess, and contenbb t.not met their burden in substantiating thecippositiob, Petitioners contond that they hay6.causes of action for fees and. expenses.

to dismiss allatinb or otherwiset Petitioners have

i fee claims. Infileged oo gni.zabl e

-,,purpose of the EDPL to pr - de the exclusiveprocedureen property shall he acqui reit gy thb exercise ofeminentn New York state 20 81 fl(3. .s previouslyiscussed, the 'acquisition procedure undef EU I 702(B) inludesDRELL article 2 procedures which are the first Etep of the eminentdomain. process and, subject to judicial review sbe, Raroett v. Townof Ticonderogfi, 13 N.Y.3d 325, s_flbraL, EDF', (iticle 2 sets forth.the condemnatioo prbcedures includin the pub] I;hing of notice andthe conduct of public hearings (see EEPL 511 1, 202, 203), therendering of the determination and findings a - y the publishing ofnotice thereof (see EDPIE Sq 204, 207 PW1), anf if.>. right of judicialreview (see Et= 207). Thbs, the Pet bibners may seekreimbursement for the actual and necessary co ts incur -red becauseof the condembation procedure that began iiii J. the notice of aablic hearing (see, Harq_ett v. Town of Ticonceyobb 3) Misc3d

Ct, Essex Coun y 2016j; Matter nff Copenhagen inuI2aialn , 26 Misc, 3d 1228(2), :supra).On a mbtion to dismiss, the court's r :1 als to deterr nbcOo' ncr the claim. states a. cause of action. 'Ehe Lotion must bedenied if from the olebRiings four cortneis 'facynal allegations arediscerned which. taken. together manifest ahy cause of actioncognisable at :haw' (511 W. 232nb Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty

98 N.Y.2d 144 12002)), To carry out this nusk, the court mustfitbrally construe the pleabh_ngs and. accept Js true the facts

ef ttwiref.n anb any submissionb in oppositohn to the dismissalon and accord the non-moving, paity th: benefit of everyle favorable inferencetd.L.ethe pleadingsEiently state a. obwase of action.rfoi of the actual andnecessary costs, di.sbursements and expenses, ar '. the reasonablenbss

7/30/2019 Eminent domain legal fee reimbursement decision

8/8

04/25/2013 16:37 FAX 17182981122008/008of thefees. andexpenses thcudedtheren, iz keferredtoanotherproceeding (see Gamache v. Steinheus, 7 A.D.G3d i25 12d Dept 20041;Becker vEmpire ot Am Fed. Sav. Bank,17 kdr.1.2d958 [4 Dept4991]).TheCty asoseeks theconversonof Iraspeca proceednginto a penary action, oz permsson to c:oduct dscovery toascpmanexactly what fees anb expenses thh Petitioneremay beentsbtled to. In oppostion, Petitioners atue that they havebrought aspeca prceedngunder the Emnent Dimpn Procedmre Lawas it is the"exthusveprocedure" frit cohdeemmdLonreaedmatersin the Sate ofNewYork Petitioners further i:ntend that. as thsiaaspetde proceedng, dscoveryshomd be C 3lied oo thp grmutdsghat the Cty has faled. to showthat it is matnria or necessary.As pawmviousy noted, theEDE" is crafthc inamanner thatdevides theemnent domauprocess intotwosEaratesteps. EDPLattiode2 sets forth theconbemnationprocedushs). FDEL artices4 through 6 definetheproceedngs that. mbst .erhe cometenceb tovest the condemnor wth. title to the cmdideenemL property. However,theEDPLconans hp provison whch spendLa:aly authorizes acondemneetocommencs aspeca proceednt: ftr therecovery ofinstddenta expenses inether stenof theprourss.Snce the EDEL does notnecfica:Gy authortze the.commenoement ofaspeca pmoceeddhb for there4:verv of incdenaexpbnses, theinstant proceedngmust beprosectedintheformofan action sep CELL 103[h]). When a .iudcHa prceedhe isinstituted in thu wong fornb the court nust convert suchproceedngintotheproper formas wel as macewhptever order isnecessary for theproper proeecuion (see Gib. .03[191: Frst Nat'lCty Bank v NwYork Fnance. Admnisttationd:( 0Y2d 87[1975).Accordngy, that branch of the wione) . ' heCty todsmssthp DOLE 702(B) claim is denied, howevpr the :ranch of thp motHonwhch seekb toconvert theinbtan proceedng :41o. apenery abtionis graned ORDERED, the"Verified Noiceo EDELSection 702(E)

Claimis deemed a summons and. the petition is. :beamed a conplaint.

Daeds April 25, 2613Index No.: 172 1 4/12