Michael Rikon

February 28, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In their Condemnation and Tax Certiorari column, M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Rikon & Rikon, conclude that the whole purpose of EDPL was to have one unified statute giving condemnees and the pubic a right to be heard, yet EDPL Section 206 provides exactly the opposite.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

10 minute read

April 29, 2009 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, take a second look at questions raised by a recent Court of Appeals ruling which noted that there was a more recent fourth test of what constituted a compensable trade fixture, i.e., substantial loss of value on removal, than the traditional three noted in the case law and cited in its earlier Rose decision.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

10 minute read

April 29, 2010 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, review United States v. Miller, "the most misunderstood condemnation case ever decided."

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

9 minute read

October 28, 2004 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners at Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, ask: Will ther Supreme Court go the way of Michigan and flat out deny the right to condemn in the name of economic development, or will it go the way of New York where virtually anything goes with a virtually impossible test to challenge it?

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

8 minute read

July 08, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their Condemnation and Tax Certiorari column, M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that not all damages which flow from the use to which the condemned property is put can be recovered in condemnation proceedings.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

11 minute read

August 04, 2008 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, admit to being puzzled by a recent decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department. The issue was the valuation date of the taking. What puzzled them? The loose use of terms when a taking was adjudicated. Both decisions used the same words to describe something different.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

12 minute read

June 29, 2005 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, consider several zoning actions recently taken by the city of New York. One is to the waterfront in Williamsburg in Brooklyn and the other the rezoning on the West Side of Manhattan in the area called Hudson Yards.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

14 minute read

October 26, 2005 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, review the basic principles involved in the right of eminent domain and in any bill which seeks to restrict a legislative body from exercising that right and one of the more thoughtful of the bills that have been proposed in the state legislature since the Kelo case was decided.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

11 minute read

June 25, 2002 | New York Law Journal

E minent domain is the right of the sovereign to take your property. It is an inherent power of government that is necessary for the fulfillment of sovereign functions.

By M. Robert Goldstein And Michael Rikon

11 minute read

April 27, 2007 | New York Law Journal

M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon, partners of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, write that prior appraisals must be maintained by the appraiser, and once that appraiser has testified, any conditional immunity a prior report had disappears.

By M. Robert Goldstein and Michael Rikon

9 minute read