Saturday, May 22, 2010

Firm representing Goldstein in eminent domain proceedings touts $3 million settlement

After what they presumably considered a discreet amount of time--one month--the law firm representing Daniel Goldstein in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain proceedings issued a triumphant press release about the settlement.

The press release is not aimed at people interested in the Atlantic Yards fight or the nitty-gritty of the settlement figure, which was driven by Forest City Ratner's interest in vacant possession in time for the NBA lottery (and the entrance of new Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov), a lowball offer from the state which pushed Goldstein to settlement, and a judge very interested in getting a deal done in one day.

Not to mention a delay in negotiations caused by the developer's interest in a full gag order. The aftermath? Forest City Ratner's spurious claim that the sticking point was money.

Rather, the release from Goldstein, Rikon & Rikon (disclosure) doesn't offer such context. It seems aimed at generating professional acclaim and business leads. That's what businesses do, but it's not the full story.

The press release
Final "Atlantic Yards" Homeowner Agrees to $3 Million Settlement in Eminent Domain Dispute with State of New York

Lawyers from Goldstein, Rikon & Rikon negotiate deal on behalf of last condo owner to vacate his property, clearing way for New Jersey Nets to build new arena

New York, NY (PRWEB) May 22, 2010 -- Attorneys from the New York law firm of Goldstein, Rikon & Rikon, the only law firm in New York practicing exclusively in the area of eminent domain and condemnation law, successfully negotiated a settlement on behalf of the last homeowner to agree to vacate his condominium on the property that is to be used for Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards development, which will include the New Jersey Nets' new arena.

Daniel Goldstein, an outspoken opponent of the Atlantic Yards project and the only remaining resident of a 31-unit condominium building at 636 Pacific Street in Brooklyn, agreed to a $3 million settlement with the New York State Urban Development Corporation, which had taken title to his property by eminent domain on March 1, 2010. Goldstein was represented in the negotiations by Michael Rikon, an experienced eminent domain attorney and partner at Goldstein, Rikon & Rikon. The settlement was reached in court before the Hon. Abraham Gerges, Justice of the Supreme Court for Kings County, N.Y.

"We're delighted to achieve this outcome for our client so that he can get this entire matter behind him and use the compensation he will receive from the settlement to relocate his family to a new home in New York," said Rikon. "Our client never wanted to leave his home and does not believe it was right for him to be forced out, but we're gratified that we were able to achieve a reasonable resolution for him."

Goldstein, Rikon & Rikon limits its practice to eminent domain and condemnation law. Eminent domain refers to the sovereign's power to take private property for a public use, provided that "just compensation" is paid. The firm offers its clients the opportunity to retain counsel highly experienced in obtaining just compensation.

Goldstein, Rikon & Rikon, P.C. was founded in 1923, when Samuel Goldstein and Nathan L. Goldstein created a law firm that established a strong tradition of aggressively protecting the constitutional rights of people who had their property forcibly acquired by condemnation or eminent domain. In 1994, Michael Rikon, who had been practicing condemnation and eminent domain law since 1969, merged his firm, Michael Rikon, P.C., with the Goldsteins to form Goldstein, Goldstein & Rikon, P.C. Earlier this year, Joshua H. Rikon, Jonathan M. Houghton and Philip A. Sanchez became partners in the law firm currently known as Goldstein, Rikon & Rikon, P.C.

For more information, please call 212.422.4000 or go to www.ggrgpc.com.

1 comment:

  1. Goldstein, Rikon & Rikon's press release is certainly more forthright and honest than any communique Ratner & Co. have ever issued about Atlantic Yards.

    "We were able to achieve a reasonable resolution for him" is dead on. The settlement was much better than the punitive low-ball offer the state made on Ratner's behalf, yet no windfall, especially since Daniel and Shabnam's home, from the first day to the last, was the most significant obstacle standing between Ratner and his $4.9 billion project.

    ReplyDelete