IN RE: Arbern Sutphin Properties (2011)

Argued—June 7, 2011

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination of the City of New York, dated November 3, 2010, made after a public hearing, authorizing the condemnation of certain real property.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The petitioner Arbern Sutphin Properties, LLC, owns real property located at 90–79 Sutphin Boulevard in Jamaica, Queens, designated as Queens Block 9994, Lot 38 (hereinafter the subject property).   The petitioner Jonas Equities, Inc., is the registered agent and managing agent of the subject property.   The subject property comprises the entire blockfront along the northern side of Archer Avenue between Sutphin Boulevard and 147th Place and is within a site designated by the City of New York for a project known as the “Archer Avenue Station Plaza Project” (hereinafter the proposed project).   The proposed project has its origins in the “Vision for Jamaica Center,” a planning strategy for the development of the area surrounding the Long Island Rail Road Jamaica Station facility (hereinafter Jamaica Station), issued by the Greater Jamaica Development Corporation in June 2000 in anticipation of the Air Train Terminal connecting Jamaica Station to JFK International Airport.   Jamaica Station is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Archer Avenue and Sutphin Boulevard.   The proposed project seeks to widen and realign Archer Avenue between 144th Place and 147th Place to increase pedestrian and vehicular safety, ease sidewalk and street congestion in the area, enhance intermodal connections for passengers, and “create new public spaces, concession opportunities and a more appropriate framework for anticipated additional commercial density in the Station Plaza area.”   The petitioners challenge, pursuant to EDPL 207, the City's determination and findings, which authorized the condemnation of the subject property to effectuate the proposed project.

Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the determination and findings of the City fully satisfied the requirements of EDPL 204(B).  EDPL 204(B) does not mandate that a condemnor address every specific concern or objection raised at the public hearing in its determination, and findings.   Further, the record does not support the petitioners' contention that, in reaching its determination, the City failed to consider the petitioners' objections, including the objection that the proposed condemnation will reduce the value of the petitioners' adjacent property, designated Queens Block 9994, Lot 31, which is not being considered for acquisition by the City.

The petitioners failed to sustain their burden of establishing that the taking is excessive (see Matter of Aspen Cr. Estates, Ltd. v Town of Brookhaven, 47 AD3d at 278;  Matter of Butler v Onondaga County Legislature, 39 AD3d 1271;  Matter of Stankevich v. Town of Southold, 29 AD3d 810;  Matter of Gyrodyne Co. of Am., Inc. v State Univ. of N.Y. at Stony Brook, 17 AD3d 675;  Matter of Rafferty v. Town of Colonie, 300 A.D.2d 719, 723).

The petitioners' remaining contention is without merit.

SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court