Michael Rikon

April 21, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

12 minute read

April 26, 2005 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that the Eminent Domain Procedure Law provides for only two instances of discovery. The first gives a condemnor the right to inspect the property prior to vesting and to request financial information to be used for a pre-vesting offer. Another type of discovery sanctioned is the right to enter the property prior to acquisition to conduct an environmental survey and related tests.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

9 minute read

March 24, 2010 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that a review of the issues raised and dealt with in a recent 82-page ruling by Justice Abraham Gerges sketch a road map for others seeking to, at a minimum, delay a condemnation proceeding, assuming they have deep enough pockets to pay for the numerous challenges.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

8 minute read

August 24, 2005 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that some courts have stated that a motion in limine which challenges evidence which is claimed to be inadmissible, immaterial, prejudicial or requests a limitation on the use of evidence should be in writing. This is especially true if the motion in limine asserts that an expert will tender an opinion that cannot be made with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

6 minute read

September 25, 2008 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that the chickens are coming home to roost after an unfortunate result coming from the interpretation of a condominium's bylaws in the partial taking of a gated community on Long Island by the Appellate Dvision, Second Department.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

12 minute read

June 28, 2006 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that there is an old saying that no one is safe while the Legislature is in session. As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, between the state Senate and Assembly there have been 18 individual bills dropped into the hopper which would affect, in varying ways, the use of the power of eminent domain in the state of New York.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

11 minute read

December 23, 2009 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write: While we have not even attempted to read all of the enabling acts creating the 1,098 public authorities in the State of New York, all those we have seen over a long period of time were granted the power of eminent domain. These agencies depend for their financing upon legislative appropriations, bond issues for specific projects and tolls in the case of highways and bridges. Such bonds do not have the backing of the full faith and credit of the state and are deemed only moral obligations of the state, which brings to mind a very basic concept of constitutional law - the right to sure and certain compensation to a property owner whose property is taken by right of eminent domain.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

11 minute read

April 21, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By M. Robert Goldstein And Michael Rikon

12 minute read

October 26, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their Condemnation and Tax Certiorari, column, M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners at Goldstein, Rikon & Rikon, write that the Appraisal Rule is not limited to just appraisal reports but extends to other experts as well and the failure to exchange reports upon which testimony may be based precludes the use of such evidence.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

11 minute read

October 24, 2007 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, argue that the denial of attorney's fees in Haverstraw is a misreading of Eminent Domain Procedure Law. The court said the attorney's fees to be reimbursed could only be those incurred relating to the attempts to begin the proceeding and did not apply to a challenge to the determination and findings as in that case. The reading it gives literally would make a nullity of EDPL �702(B).

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

9 minute read