New York Law Review

Tag: EDPL 401

  • Binghamton Urban Renewal Agency v. Manculich, 69 N.Y.2d 424 (1987): Statute of Limitations in Eminent Domain Proceedings

    Binghamton Urban Renewal Agency v. Manculich, 69 N.Y.2d 424 (1987)

    Under New York’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL), the statute of limitations for commencing condemnation proceedings runs from the completion of the procedure that forms the basis of exemption from the requirement of making new findings, even if the project is later amended.

    Summary

    The Binghamton Urban Renewal Agency (BURA) sought to condemn the remaining parcels of land for its Clinton Street Redevelopment Project. Landowners challenged the condemnation based on the statute of limitations. The New York Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations began to run from the initial approval of the project in 1980, not from a later amendment in 1983, because the initial approval was the basis for BURA’s exemption from conducting additional hearings and findings. Since the condemnation proceedings were commenced more than three years after the initial approval, they were time-barred.

    Facts

    In March 1980, BURA adopted the Clinton Street Redevelopment Project. The City Planning Commission and City Council approved the project in April 1980, making a finding of blight. The landowners’ land was within the project area. BURA amended the project plan twice in 1980, and again in April 1983, addressing commercial development. BURA acquired most parcels through negotiation between 1980 and 1985 but could not reach agreement with the landowners. In November and December 1985, BURA commenced proceedings to condemn the landowners’ land.

    Procedural History

    Special Term denied the landowners’ motion to dismiss the condemnation proceedings, ruling that the statute of limitations had not expired and entered judgment for BURA. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the statute of limitations for commencing condemnation proceedings under the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) began to run from the initial approval of the urban renewal project or from a subsequent amendment to the project plan.

    Holding

    No, because the procedure that formed the basis of BURA’s exemption from further compliance with EDPL 204 was completed when the plan was initially adopted and approved in April 1980. The 1983 amendment did not involve a new consideration of the factors enumerated in EDPL 204.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court focused on when the procedure that formed the basis of BURA’s exemption under EDPL 206 was completed. BURA claimed exemptions under EDPL 206(A) and (C), arguing it had already considered factors similar to those required under EDPL 204. The court assumed that BURA met the exemption requirements. EDPL 401(A)(2) provides a three-year limitations period from “the date of the order or completion of the procedure that constitutes the basis of exemption under section two hundred six”. The court stated, “The procedure that formed the basis of the exemption claimed by BURA was completed by April 1980 when the ordinance was adopted and approved.” The court rejected BURA’s argument that the limitations period ran from the 1983 amendment, stating that no new consideration of the factors enumerated in EDPL 204 occurred then. The court also rejected the argument that EDPL 401(C), which provides a ten-year limitations period for projects carried out in stages, applied because proceedings for the first stage were not commenced within the initial three-year period. The court noted that BURA was not without recourse, as EDPL 401(B) allows the limitations period to be revived if the condemnor again complies with the provisions of article two.