Title: Matter of Uptown Holdings, LLC v City of New York

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

Matter of Uptown Holdings, LLC v City of New York


2011 NY Slip Op 01071


Decided on February 17, 2011


Court of Appeals



Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.


This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.



Decided on February 17, 2011
SSD 6
[*1]In the Matter of Uptown Holdings, LLC, et al., Appellants,
vCity of New York, et al., Respondents.

Decided February 17, 2011:
Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo,
Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur, Judge Smith
in an opinion.



SMITH, J. (concurring):
I agree that no substantial constitutional issue is presented, because, as the concurring opinion in the 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 [*2]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."])