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

Heading: Compliance with District Court Order

Text: 31 Rockland advances two additional theories under New York eminent domain law to support its claims on appeal. 32
33 The County asserts that it cannot legally comply with the district court order mandating that it take by eminent domain Kohl's entire fee interest in the disputed acreage. Rockland points out that under New York law it must obtain the approval of the County legislature before exercising its taking powers. Thus, according to Rockland, since the legislature has indicated that it will approve only the condemnation of an easement over the Kohl property, compliance with the district court order would require it to act beyond its legal authority. 34 But the County legislature did approve the settlement agreement signed by Rockland and Kohl. See J.App. at 107-09. Indeed, the legislature specifically authorized Rockland to acquire the Kohl parcel abutting the Nauraushaun Brook. See J.App. at 107. Thus, there is no legal bar under this theory to prevent Rockland from condemning a fee interest in the Kohl property. 35
36 Section 204 of the New York Eminent Domain Procedure Law, N.Y.E.D.P.L. Sec. 204 (McKinney 1979), requires a condemnor to certify and approve the intended public use of a property before commencing eminent domain proceedings. Rockland asserts that the district court usurped the County's governmental function under section 204 by ordering the County to take an interest without certification and approval as necessary for the public good. 37 This argument is circular. The district court did not usurp the County's governmental function under section 204, it merely accepted a settlement agreement voluntarily entered by the parties and approved by the County legislature, pursuant to section 204. 2