Michael Rikon

August 25, 2009 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court in a claimed takings case which has an unusual twist to it - the basis for the claimed inverse condemnation is a decision of Florida's highest court interpreting the state's law of real property. It is clear that the land use community, which usually follows this type of application, was totally surprised that it was granted. After all, what the highest court of a state says is the law relating to its real estate is the law, by definition. So why did the U.S. Supreme Court take the case?

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

9 minute read

February 28, 2007 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and, Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that it is constitutionally provided that the owner of property is entitled to "just compensation" when his property is taken under the power of eminent domain. Defining what is "just" has triggered textbooks and reams of papers written on the subject. Most cases equate just compensation to the market value of the property on the date it was condemned as a tool to do so. But not all.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

13 minute read

March 14, 2008 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that it is necessary for the Legislature to define what exactly is "blight." It seems to them, they say, that "blight" is in the eyes of the beholder, and since a court will not review a blight designation, justice and fairness require a solid definition.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

10 minute read

December 24, 2008 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, discuss partial takings, such as in a street widening or takings for sewer, electrical transmission or gas lines, which can result in damages occasioned to the property remaining, not only by reason of the direct taking, but also by virtue of the use to which the appropriated property is put by the condemnor.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

10 minute read

October 27, 2009 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that some argue that New York should follow the lead of other jurisdictions that have reined in the most awesome of government's inherent powers, and provide for proper and appropriate review of any alleged blight determination, that it should now reinforce what property owners claim are their property rights and prevent the condemnation of private property for purely economic or financial benefit. But, they caution, speak to public officials who are concerned with having an adequate tax base, and a community that will provide jobs, and they will express a different point of view.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

9 minute read

August 25, 2004 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, have been hearing a drum beat of complaints from around the country of the increasing use of the power of eminent domain to acquire property to turn it over to private developers in the name of economic progress.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

11 minute read

February 03, 2005 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that when condemantion clauses are drawn those who draft them should understand the potential consequences of their language because they may lead to unintended results.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

11 minute read

June 27, 2007 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners at Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that a condemnation decision sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb in the framework of prior New York jurisprudence. While it is not based on the Kelo decision, we are not convinced it played no part in them. Could it be the justices of the Appellate Division, Third Department, read the newspapers?

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

10 minute read

April 25, 2006 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners at Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that the Eminent Domain Procedure Law sets the procedure to be followed for a condemnor to make a predicate determination and findings so to move forward to condemn property. The condemnation is basically a two-step process before title can vest in the condemnor.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

9 minute read

October 25, 2006 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that before the EDPL, there were a large number of statutes governing the procedures to be used in exercising the power of eminent domain throughout the state. One of the stated purposes of the enactment was to provide for one procedure to cover everyone in the state. But no one took into account the clout of New York City in the Legislature.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

9 minute read