MATTER OF ASPEN CREEK ESTATES, LTD. v. Town of Brookhaven
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Carr v. City of Buffalo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- 265 Penn Realty Corp. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- 265 Penn Realty Corp. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Matter of JHK Dev., LLC v. Town of Salina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Matter of Gabe Realty Corp. v. City of White Plains Urban Renewal Agency (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of One Point St., Inc. v. City of Yonkers Indus. Dev. Agency (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of City of New York v. Yonkers Indus. Dev. Agency (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Gabrielli v. Town of New Paltz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Kirquel Development, Ltd. v. Planning Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Kirquel Development, Ltd. v. Planning Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Zutt v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Zutt v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Arbern Sutphin Properties, LLC v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Syracuse University v. Project Orange Associates Services Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Uptown Holdings, LLC v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- 225 Front Street, Ltd. v. City of Binghamton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The certified question should not be answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.
Petitioner contends that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v New London (545 US 469 [2005]), which dealt with takings for purposes of economic development, requires a preexisting farmland preservation plan to justify the taking of its property as a public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment (see US Const Amend V [“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”]). We need not, and do not, reach the issue whether petitioner’s interpretation of Kelo is correct, since the challenged taking was constitutionally proper even assuming that a preexisting farmland preservation plan was necessary. Petitioner’s property was taken pursuant to a legislatively-declared public policy in favor of farmland preservation and as part of the Town of Brookhaven’s master plans endorsing farmland preservation. In furtherance of these plans, Town voters passed three bond acts providing $130 million to acquire development rights or fee interests in undeveloped land in the Town; among the areas specifically designated for preservation was the 500-acre tract of farmland in which petitioner’s parcel is located.
In short, the public benefits of the taking in this case were not incidental or pretextual in comparison with benefits to particular, favored private entities; petitioner’s remaining arguments likewise lack merit. Finally, the parties have not argued, and we do not decide, whether the New York Constitution (see *737 NY Const, art I, § 7 [a]) imposes a more stringent standard for takings than does the Fifth Amendment as interpreted by Kelo.
Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum; Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
Judgment affirmed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.