Opinion ID: 512583
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: edpl

Text: 35 The Raceway and the Seminary contend on the merits that the City failed to comply with the notice, hearing and review requirements of Article 2 of New York's Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). In its condemnation petitions, the City claimed to be exempt from compliance with the procedural requirements of the statute pursuant to the emergency situation provision of EDPL Sec. 206. 36 Section 201 of the EDPL provides that, prior to acquisition, the condemnor, in order to inform the public and to review the public use to be served by a proposed public project and the impact on the environment and residents of the locality where such project will be constructed, shall conduct a public hearing. The hearing must be held on at least ten days prior notice, EDPL Sec. 202, and following the hearing, the condemnor is required, within ninety days, to make findings and a determination of the public purpose to be served by the proposed condemnation. EDPL Sec. 204. The factors to be considered in making such determination and findings include: 37 (1) the public use, benefit or purpose to be served by the proposed public project; 38 (2) the approximate location for the proposed public project and the reasons for the selection of that location; 39 (3) the general effect of the proposed project on the environment and residents of the locality; 40 (4) such other factors as [the condemnor] considers relevant. 41 Id. Sec. 204(B). 42 A condemnor is exempt from compliance with the provisions of Article 2 of the EDPL when, inter alia, because of an emergency situation the public interest will be endangered by any delay caused by the public hearing requirement in this article. Id. Sec. 206(D). The district court found that [c]ontrary to the claims of St. Joseph's and the Raceway, the City of Yonkers, in a very real sense, is faced with an emergency (emphasis in original). As the court further explained, [t]his matter must end because it is tearing Yonkers apart and Yonkers is bleeding. 43 We believe that the district court's factual finding of such an emergency situation is amply supported by the record. See id. Sec. 207(C)(3), (4) (scope of the review shall be limited to whether ... determination and findings were made in accordance with procedures set forth in [Article 2], and [whether] a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition); see also Gerges v. Koch, 62 N.Y.2d 84, 476 N.Y.S.2d 73, 464 N.E.2d 441 (1984) (emergency situation presented by prison overcrowding warranted temporary exemption under New York City's Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) procedures, which parallel provisions of SEQRA, from filing environmental impact statement in order to begin renovation and construction of facilities as remedy for deprivation of constitutional rights of prisoners); Board of Visitors-Marcy Psychiatric Center v. Coughlin, 60 N.Y.2d 14, 466 N.Y.S.2d 668, 453 N.E.2d 1085 (1983) (same, except pursuant to SEQRA); City of Yonkers v. Hvizd, 93 A.D.2d 887, 461 N.Y.S.2d 408, (2d Dep't 1983) (existence of emergency situation endangering public interest warrants application of EDPL 206(D) exemption); Matter of Village of Malverne, 70 A.D.2d 920, 418 N.Y.S.2d 93 (2d Dep't 1979) (same). More than two years after the issuance of the Housing Remedy Order and eight years since the commencement of the civil rights action, no housing remedy has been implemented. The public interest cannot wait any longer. We thus agree with the district court that the 1200 people on the waiting list for public housing in Yonkers have a right to a remedy, and in our judgment any further delay--aside from that which is necessary to address the first amendment claim of the Seminary as discussed in Part II. C. below--would be intolerable. 44 Appellants maintain that the only emergency in this case is the result of Yonkers own intransigence, and consequently that full compliance with the terms of the statute cannot be excused. We disagree. An assessment of blame regarding the predicament in which Yonkers presently finds itself is quite frankly irrelevant to a determination of whether or not Yonkers is faced with an emergency situation under the statute. Cf. Gerges, 62 N.Y.2d at 95, 476 N.Y.S.2d at 78 (that municipal officials might have foreseen and ... made appropriate provision for ... resolution of emergency situation regarding constitutionally inadequate prison facilities does not negate the existence of the present crisis). Indeed, the very purpose of the exemption provisions under Article 2 of the EDPL is to excuse compliance with the procedural requirements of the statute when the public interest so requires. See City of Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency v. Moreton, 100 A.D.2d 20, 473 N.Y.S.2d 278, 281 (4th Dep't 1984); see also Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 305, 494 N.E.2d 429, 436 (1986) (principal purpose of Article 2 ... is to ensure that [the condemnor] does not acquire property without having made a reasoned determination that the condemnation will serve a valid public purpose). 45 Appellants concede that the construction of low income housing in Yonkers required by the Housing Remedy Order would serve a valid public purpose. In addition, as the district court stated, [t]he process by which the public housing sites designated in the Consent Decree were determined, the notoriety of that process, the review already given to those sites and the continuing review ... by HUD certainly satisfied the substance of the State law provisions upon which St. Joseph's and the Raceway predicate their claims. See also Aswad v. City School Dist., 74 A.D.2d 972, 425 N.Y.S.2d 896, 898 (3d Dep't 1980) (holding that substantial compliance with exemption provisions of section 206 and four factors enumerated in section 204(B) was sufficient to confirm proposed condemnation). We agree that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the EDPL in this case. During extensive proceedings before the district court, the City's independent planning experts, the court-appointed Outside Housing Advisor, the Municipal Housing Authority and the City's Community Development Agency all participated in a thorough review of the location, distribution and suitability of the designated sites. With regard to the general effect of the proposed condemnations on the environment and residents of the locality, EDPL Sec. 204(B)(3), HUD conducted a preliminary evaluation as part of its ongoing review of the sites and reported to the district court that the housing plan appeared to meet site, neighborhood and environmental standards for public housing. See generally 24 C.F.R. Sec. 941.202 (1988). 46 Consequently, given the undisputed public purpose inherent in the implementation of the Housing Remedy Order and the nature and extent of the review process, we are convinced that there was a valid determination that the proposed condemnations would be in the public interest as required under Article 2 of the EDPL.