Skip to main content

Oral argument *postponed*in case regarding call for new eminent domain findings; ESDC wants case moved to Brooklyn, says Gerges already decided issues

Update: The case has been rescheduled for Tuesday, May 18 at 2:30 pm.

The last Atlantic Yards case to reach oral argument will be heard tomorrow; the issues include whether the belatedly-released Development Agreement can be formally added to the case and whether the case remains before a Manhattan judge already critical of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) or moved to a Brooklyn judge who has ruled without question in the ESDC's favor.

The case, known as Peter Williams Enterprises, et al., vs. New York State Urban Development Corporation (aka ESDC), will be heard at 11 am at 60 Centre Street, room 335, before Supreme Court Justice Marcy Friedman.

The Development Agreement

The plaintiffs argue that the ESDC should not have relied on the 2006 Determination and Findings (D&F) to exercise eminent domain but instead should have issued a new D&F describing the public use to be served by the project as of 2010, given that the Development Agreement, among other documents, points to a much longer buildout.

I previewed the arguments on 4/9/10 and covered the brief hearing on 4/12/10; as noted below, a major pending issue is whether the case should be moved to Kings County Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges, who already ruled against similar arguments in the effort to block condemnation, but didn't evaluate the Development Agreement.

As for the Development Agreement, Friedman is already considering it in motions to reopen a separate case challenging the legitimacy of the claimed ten-year buildout. She had ruled against the petitioners, two coalitions of community groups, but had refused to open the record to the Development Agreement, released in late January.

Even as construction proceeds on the arena, the fundamental question, to attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff (who represents petitioners in the D&F case), is whether the ESDC will succeed in its "bad faith attempt to conceal the true nature of the Atlantic Yards Project from Petitioners and the public at large until after the time to challenge it has expired."

Plaintiffs dwindle

The case was filed by property owners and a leaseholder subject to eminent domain but, after three of those owners (Williams, Daniel Goldstein, and Freddy's Bar & Backroom) reached settlements after title was transferred to the ESDC, essentially two plaintiffs remain.

They are companies owned by Henry Weinstein, longtime owner of property at the corner of Pacific Street and Carlton Avenue since transferred by eminent domain (but still in the valuation phase), as well as The Gelin Group, purportedly the owner of a house on Dean Street that was originally targeted for eminent domain but is now scheduled for an unspecified later phase.

The latter property was not part of the previous case case before Gerges.

ESDC argument

In a legal affirmation (documents below), ESDC attorney Philip Karmel states petitioners' attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff "made each of the arguments he is now presenting" before Gerges but they were rejected as meritless.

That's not quite so, because Gerges didn't evaluate the Development Agreement, as noted in previous court papers.

Karmel, pointing out that ESDC now holds title to the property formerly owned by the Phase 1 petitioners, says the case should go back to Brooklyn, according to the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL).

It also would serve the goal of judicial efficiency, he argues, given that Gerges is already familiar with the issues and that a transfer "would ensure that the inevitable appeal" would go to the Appellate Division, Second Department, which already has jurisdiction over the potential appeal of the condemnation decisions.

Beyond that, for petitioners other than The Gelin Group (a limited liability company representing a household), the claims had already been raised and dismissed, and thus can't be re-litigated. He notes that, while The Gelin Group claims to own 491 Dean Street, city records indicate another owner.

Petitioners' response

In response, Brinckerhoff points out that neither the claims nor the issues apply to The Gelin Group, so the case shouldn't be transferred to Brooklyn. He acknowledges that another party owns the building but "Gelin occupies the premises" and has been authorized to challenge the attempt at condemnation.

He accuses the ESDC of "the unseemly attempt to judge shop," a nod to the record in which Gerges has ruled fully for the state agency, while Friedman, in an March ruling upholding the ESDC's timetable, nevertheless slammed the ESDC's "deplorable lack of transparency."

He writes:
Once it is recognized that Petitioner Gelin has the unfettered right to have the merits of its claim heard by this Court, Respondent's motion serves no purpose.
And only after Gerges issued his opinion backing the ESDC did the agency begin arguing that the case belonged in his court, he contends.

Brinckheroff calls Gerges's opinion "as confusing as it is prolix," arguing that it dismissed the petitioners' claims "on statute of limitations grounds that have no application here."

He concludes that the motion to dismiss should be denied, and the cross-motion for leave to amend the petition--to add the Development Agreement so it's part of a record for appeal--should be granted:
Respondent will then, finally, after years of stonewalling, be required to affirm or deny Petitioners' detailed factual allegations, including many that have only recently come to light due to Respondent's bad faith attempt to conceal the true nature of the Atlantic Yards Project from Petitioners and the public at large until after the time to challenge it has expired.
ESDC response

In response, Karmel states that Brinckerhoff's affirmation "fails to provide any compelling justification for ignoring the directive... that a proceeding affecting title to real property be litigated in the county in which any part of such property is located."

Moreover, "principles of judicial economy" mean that the claims of the three remaining petitioners should be heard in one proceeding, he says.

Also, Karmel notes that there's no proof that Gelin even has a leasehold interest in the property given that the address for service of process on Gelin is in another neighborhood--and that he has not received a promised affidavit that was supposed to substantiate Gelin's role.

Karmel argues that Gerges did reach the merits of the claims, though he doesn't address the details of the Development Agreement.

The latter is cited in an affirmation by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn attorney Jeff Baker in the other case before Friedman; Brinckerhoff included that affirmation as an exhibit.

Karmel says the issues regarding the Development Agreement have already been addressed in previous motions, so the Baker affirmation was gratuitous.
Karmel Affirmation in Support of Motion to Change Venue

Affirmation by Matthew Brinckherhoff in Opposition to ESDC Motion to Change Venue

Reply Affirmation by Philip Karmel Regarding ESDC Motion for Change of Venue

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.