Opinion ID: 420908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutionality of Taking

Text: 22 Counsel for Rockland crafts a creative, albeit unpersuasive, constitutional argument in an effort to evade its obligation under the settlement agreement. The County asserts that its eminent domain powers are limited by the constitutional prohibition against taking private property in excess of that amount necessary to accomplish the intended public use. Rockland notes that it could satisfy its anti-flooding objective simply by taking an easement in the Kohl property and hence the acquisition of a fee simple interest would amount to an unconstitutional taking of a property interest greater than that necessary to achieve its public purpose. 23 We agree that a county has no right under its eminent domain power to condemn an estate in excess of that which is needed to accomplish the intended public purpose. See Hallock v. New York, 32 N.Y.2d 599, 605, 347 N.Y.S.2d 60, 64, 300 N.E.2d 430, 432 (1973); Mayo v. Windels, 255 A.D. 22, 27, 5 N.Y.S.2d 690, 693 (2d Dep't 1938), aff'd, 281 N.Y. 837, 24 N.E.2d 494 (1939). This constitutional restriction does not, however, preclude the county from negotiating and then acquiring, with the owner's consent, an estate greater than necessary to satisfy the immediate public interest. See Sherman v. McKeon, 38 N.Y. 266, 274 (1868); Embury v. Conner, 3 N.Y. 511, 518 (1850); see also Winslow v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 208 U.S. 59, 62, 28 S.Ct. 190, 191, 52 L.Ed. 388 (1908) (owner of private property cannot complain of unconstitutional taking where owner consents to that taking); Mayo v. Windels, 255 A.D. at 27, 5 N.Y.S.2d at 693. 24 The consent doctrine, first adopted by the New York courts in Embury v. Conner, 3 N.Y. 511 (1850), recognizes that the constitutional limitation on the state's eminent domain power was intended to protect the private property owner from the misuse of that power, not shield the government from its contractual obligations under the guise of concerns about excessive taking. Id. at 518; see Mayo v. Windels, 255 A.D. at 27, 5 N.Y.S.2d at 693. The state occupies a position of disproportionate strength when wielding its eminent domain power. Indeed, as an incident of its sovereignty, the state may take all property necessary for public use as long as just compensation is paid. The private property owner is at the mercy of the state; he cannot forestall the taking by objection or court decree as long as his property is necessary for a public use. A wholly different case is presented when the private property owner consents to the proposed condemnation. In that situation, the constitutional limitation on the state's eminent domain power is not needed to protect the property owner from an excessive taking. 25 The reported decisions fully support the view that the constitutional limitation on the state's eminent domain power was intended to protect the property owner, not the government. See, e.g., Embury v. Conner, 3 N.Y. at 511; see also Hallock v. New York, 32 N.Y.2d at 605, 347 N.Y.S.2d at 64, 300 N.E.2d at 432; Mayo v. Windels, 255 A.D. at 27, 5 N.Y.S.2d at 693. Appellant cites no case, and we find none, where the state has relied on the necessity doctrine to evade a contractual obligation. We will not allow Rockland to be relieved from its lawful obligation because, now, with the benefit of hindsight, it wants to renege on its agreement. Absent a showing of collusion or fraud, when the parties have consented to the taking, the constitutional limitation on the state's power of eminent domain is inapplicable.