New York Court of Appeals, 2011

Uptown Holdings, LLC v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 17, 2011 · Smith

16 N.Y.3d 764; 944 N.E.2d 650

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Matter of City of New York v. 2305-07 Third Ave., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)

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 of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Pigott and Jones. Judge Smith concurs in an opinion.

Concurring Opinion

Smith, J. (concurring).

I agree that no substantial constitutional issue is presented, because, as the concurring opinion in *765the Appellate Division points out, this case is controlled by Matter of Goldstein v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. (13 NY3d 511 [2009]) and Matter of Kaur v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. (15 NY3d 235 [2010]). I think it necessary to point out, however, that our dismissal of this appeal does not imply endorsement of the Appellate Division majority opinion, which may be read to suggest that Kelo v New London (545 US 469 [2005]) should be followed by New York courts interpreting the New York Constitution (see Goldstein, 13 NY3d at 546 [Smith, J., dissenting] [“The good news from today’s decision is that our Court has not followed the lead of the United States Supreme Court in rendering the ‘public use’ restriction on the Eminent Domain Clause virtually meaningless”]).

Appeal dismissed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.