| Matter of Anderson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08450 [45 AD3d 583] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Eliselle Anderson et al., Petitioners, v NewYork State Urban Development Corporation, Doing Business as Empire State DevelopmentCorporation, Respondent. |
—[*1] Berger & Webb, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Charles S. Webb III and Kenneth J. Applebaum ofcounsel) and Bryan Cave LLP, New York, N.Y. (Philip E. Karmel of counsel), for respondent(one brief filed).
Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination of the New York State UrbanDevelopment Corporation, doing business as Empire State Development Corporation, datedDecember 8, 2006, made after a public hearing, authorizing the condemnation of certain realproperty.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, with costs, the petition is denied, and theproceeding is dismissed.
Judicial review of a condemnation proceeding is limited to whether (1) the proceeding was inconformity with the federal and state constitutions, (2) the proposed acquisition was within thecondemnor's statutory jurisdiction or authority, (3) the condemnor's determinations and findingswere made in accordance with the procedures set forth in EDPL article 2 and the StateEnvironmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]), and (4) a public use,benefit, or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition (see EDPL 207 [C];Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400, 418 [1986]). "Ifan adequate basis for a determination is shown 'and the objector cannot show that thedetermination was 'without foundation', the agency's determination should be confirmed' "(Matter of Waldo's, Inc. v Village of Johnson City, 74 NY2d 718, 720 [1989], quotingMatter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d at 425; see Long Is.R.R. Co. v Long Is. Light. Co., 103 AD2d 156, 168 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 1088[1985]).[*2]
The petitioners contend that the respondent failed tosatisfy the requirements of the New York State Urban Development Corporation Act (hereinafterthe UDC Act) § 10 (g) (McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY § 6260 [g]), whichprovides that the respondent is without authority to condemn real property except upon findingthat there is "a feasible method for the relocation of families and individuals displaced from theproject area into decent, safe and sanitary dwellings, which are or will be provided in the projectarea or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public andcommercial facilities, at rents or prices within the financial means of such families, andreasonably accessible to their places of employment" (hereinafter a feasible method forrelocation). The petitioners argue that the respondent failed to make a specific finding that thereexisted a feasible method for relocation and, to the extent that such a conclusion can be inferred,that it is without foundation in the record. We have reviewed the petitioners' contentions and findthem to be without merit.
Contrary to the petitioners' argument, the respondent did find, in its resolutions dated July 8,2006, which were ratified and reaffirmed in resolutions dated December 8, 2006, that a feasiblemethod for relocation existed. The foundation for that finding is in the final environmentalimpact statement (hereinafter FEIS), which was explicitly referenced in one of the resolutionsdated December 8, 2006. The petitioners do not challenge the finding, reflected in the FEIS, thatonly 146 residents would be displaced by the project, and that this number of residentsconstitutes less than one tenth of one percent of the residents within a three-quarter-mile radiusof the project. In these circumstances, the petitioners' argument that the respondent was requiredto conduct an additional study of the availability of housing in the area is without merit, and theplan for services to the displaced residents that the respondent has adopted, includingprofessional relocation consulting, real estate brokerage and moving services, the payment ofmoving expenses, and an additional monetary payment for other ancillary expenses, provides asufficient foundation for the respondent's finding that a feasible method for relocation exists(see Matter of Fisher [New York State Urban Dev. Corp.], 287 AD2d 262, 264 [2001]).
The petitioners' contention that the respondent failed to take a "hard look" at the impact onthem of their displacement from their residences, in accordance with SEQRA, is also withoutmerit. While SEQRA review requires a lead agency to take a hard look at the socioeconomicimpact of a project on the community as a whole, including "the impact that a project may haveon population patterns or existing community character, with or without a separate impact on thephysical environment" (Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 NY2d359, 366 [1986]), the agency is not obligated to separately consider the impact on a particularsubgroup or upon particular individuals (see Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev.Corp., 67 NY2d at 420-421). Here, a review of the FEIS reveals that the respondentappropriately considered the impact that the displacement of all households within the projectsite would have on the socioeconomic profile and character of the community as a whole, andthere is no basis upon which to disturb its conclusion that the project would not lead to asignificant adverse socioeconomic impact due to direct residential displacement. Spolzino, J.P.,Santucci, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.