Title: In the Matter of Uptown Holdings v. City of New York

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SSD 6
In the Matter of Uptown Holdings, 
LLC, et al.,
            Appellants,
        v.
City 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])
- 1 -
- 2 -
 SSD No. 6
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."])
- 2 -