86 N.Y.2d 718 (1995)
r
r
An incidental private benefit resulting from a condemnation does not invalidate the agency’s determination of public use, benefit, or purpose, so long as the public purpose is dominant.
r
r
Summary
r
Walden challenged the Village of Johnson City’s condemnation of its property for a four-way intersection providing access to the Oakdale Mall and Wegmans Enterprises. Walden argued the project primarily benefited Wegmans, undermining the public use justification, and that Wegmans’ financial commitment improperly influenced the condemnation. The court held that the condemnation served a public purpose because it alleviated traffic congestion, and the benefit to Wegmans was merely incidental. The court affirmed the condemnation, finding sufficient statutory authorization and no evidence of bad faith.
r
r
Facts
r
The Village of Johnson City condemned Walden’s property to construct a four-way intersection providing access to the Oakdale Mall and Wegmans Enterprises. The condemnation was prompted by growing traffic congestion in the area, as identified in three public studies since 1978. Wegmans made a $1.5 million commitment to the project. Walden challenged the condemnation, arguing it primarily benefited Wegmans and that Wegmans’ financial contribution improperly influenced the Village’s decision.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Walden initiated the proceeding directly in the Appellate Division pursuant to EDPL Article 2. The Appellate Division upheld the condemnation. Walden appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether the condemnation of Walden’s property was primarily for a private benefit, thus invalidating the determination that it was for a public use?
r
2. Whether Wegmans’ financial commitment to the project improperly induced the Village to condemn Walden’s property?
r
3. Whether the Village had statutory authority to accept Wegmans’ financial offer in connection with the condemnation?
r
4. Whether Walden’s allegations of bad faith justified an additional due process hearing?
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because the project served a dominant public purpose of alleviating traffic congestion, and the benefit to Wegmans was merely incidental.
r
2. No, because the public good was enhanced by Wegmans’ efforts, and the Village initiated the contact and proposed a joint venture.
r
3. Yes, because the Village is empowered to acquire title by condemnation for the purpose of laying out or widening streets and to accept conditional gifts.
r
4. No, because Walden failed to present any evidence at the public hearing to undermine the bona fides of the Village’s decision-making process.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court reasoned that EDPL 207 limits judicial review to whether the condemnation was constitutional, within the agency’s statutory jurisdiction, in accordance with proper procedures, and served a public use, benefit, or purpose. Citing Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., the court noted that if an adequate basis for the determination is shown, the agency’s determination should be confirmed unless the objector demonstrates it was