In Atlantic City Eminent Domain Case, Appellate Division Again Sizes Up 'Land Banking'
Just weeks after the Appellate Division issued a precedential decision denying eminent domain seizure for a redevelopment project of indefinite timing, it has done so again, this time in connection with a property sitting near the structure once known as the Revel in Atlantic City.
February 15, 2019 at 04:39 PM
5 minute read
Just weeks after the Appellate Division issued a precedential decision denying eminent domain seizure for a redevelopment project of indefinite timing, it has done so again, this time in connection with a property sitting near the structure once known as the Revel in Atlantic City.
The Feb. 15 decision in Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Birnbaum affirms an August 2016 decision by Atlantic County Assignment Judge Julio Mendez that dismissed a condemnation action lodged in early 2014 against property owners Charles and Lucinda Birnbaum by the state Casino Reinvestment Development Authority.
The decision follows a ruling by a different panel of the Appellate Division from Jan. 7 in Borough of Glassboro v. Grossman. There the court ruled that a municipality or redeveloper whose condemnation of property in a redevelopment zone is challenged must articulate a definitive need that goes beyond the mere “stockpiling” of real estate.
“We conclude here as we did in Glassboro that the proposed stockpiling of land for future redevelopment does not suffice to establish a taking is reasonably necessary,” Appellate Division Judge Ellen Koblitz wrote in the Birnbaum decision, joined by Judges Mitchel Ostrer and Heidi Willis Currier.
“As we concluded in Glassboro when analyzing the term 'necessary' in the [Local Redevelopment and Housing Law], the language of necessity means 'reasonably necessary,'” the panel ruled. “Similarly, 'whether for immediate use' must be interpreted to imply a limitation of reasonably foreseeable future use rather than limitless future use. A number of out-of-state cases support this view.”
“Unlike the municipality in Glassboro … the CRDA has statutory authority to determine when a project is 'necessary,'” she wrote. “The CRDA does not have unfettered discretion in defining what is 'necessary,' however, because its actions are subject to review on the basis of manifest abuse of power.”
And that authority “is bound by evidence that a proposed redevelopment will occur in the foreseeable future,” Koblitz added.
The Birnbaum home, first purchased by the family in 1969, would come to be in a CRDA redevelopment zone set up in 2012 in connection with the new Revel casino nearby. The authority sought to buy the property, a three-story residence whose first floor currently is used as Charles Birnbaum's piano studio, for $238,500 in 2013. The Birnbaums declined, according to the court.
The CRDA lodged a condemnation action in February 2014. Mendez initially allowed the condemnation action to move forward, but later reconsidered because of several factors, including Revel's 2014 bankruptcy filing and pending statutory changes to the CRDA's funding. The ruling on appeal came in August 2016, when Mendez denied the condemnation application because of the uncertainty of the redevelopment project and because the CRDA “is not empowered to condemn a property only to have it sit idly, potentially for years on end, as they wait for [the] right project to present itself.” The judge pointed to other properties seized by the CRDA that had yet to be developed, and the overall downturn in Atlantic City's economy and in the Birnbaums' now-desolate neighborhood, according to the Appellate Division.
The authority argued on appeal that Mendez went too far in requiring that it demonstrate a redevelopment plan that could be executed in a “reasonable” amount of time.
The Appellate Division panel disagreed, holding that although the CRDA has statutory authority to determine what is necessary, the necessity still must be reasonable.
“Judge Mendez was presented only with a 'conceptual plan,'” Koblitz wrote.
With Revel shuttered in late 2014, “at the time of the judge's decision in 2016, the intended partner of the Project and its primary funding source had ceased to exist,” the court said, adding that, also between 2014 and 2016, “statutory changes altered the financing of the CRDA, and reduced or eliminated key funding sources the CRDA relied on to 'incentivize' private investors to commit to the redevelopment.”
“Under these highly unusual circumstances, it was reasonable for the judge to question whether the project would proceed in the foreseeable future when determining whether the proposed condemnation constituted a manifest abuse of the CRDA's condemnation authority,” Koblitz wrote.
Robert McNamara of the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, counsel to the Birnbaums, said in a phone interview that the courts in Glassboro and this case are “emphatically asserting their own role in the process” and “imposing some guardrails to impede the kind of land speculation that was going on in this case.”
He added, “What you see here is the court articulating an actual standard of necessity, regardless of the statute.”
The CRDA was represented by Stuart Lederman of Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti in Morristown, who couldn't be reached for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNJ Attorney General's Office Announces Major Shake-Up for Executive Leadership Team
4 minute read'Bewitched by the Technology': $300K to Settle Faulty Facial Recognition
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-59
- 2The American Lawyer Names Industry Award Winners
- 3Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
- 4Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 5Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250