New York is perhaps the worst state in the country for eminent domain abuse. Just in the past five years, it has condemned small businesses for the New York Stock Exchange, The New York Times, Costco, and Stop & Shop. New York cities also have condemned the future home of an inner-city church for commercial development and forced the closure of a family furniture-making business in favor of a Home Depot. There have been at least 14 private use projects in New York between 1998 and 2002, taking at least 57 businesses. This enthusiasm for eminent domain is encouraged by the courts, which rubber stamp every condemnation and seem to consider any kind of private undertaking a public use. New York citizens, however, are beginning to wake up to the problems with eminent domain abuse and are beginning to object. One community in New Rochelle was successful in fending off a plan to take their homes and businesses for an IKEA. Other activism has been less effective, but as groups become more organized, they may well begin to have more success in defeating plans to take their property for other private parties.
The New York state legislature recently considered a number of bills that would have changed the state’s decidedly pro-condemnation eminent domain laws. Three competing bills would all have strengthened the rights of property owners by requiring delivery of written notice to owners prior to public hearings regarding condemnation of their property, and one would have required notice of the approval of the condemnation power. These bills died before any could pass the legislature.484
Private Use Condemnations
William Minnich and his nephew, Bill Minnich, own Minic Custom Woodwork in East Harlem, a thriving custom-made furniture and cabinetry business that has been in their family for more than 70 years.485 The Minnichs bought their East Harlem building in 1981, and devoted more than $250,000 to renovating the building and adding permanent woodworking fixtures. The area around the Minnichs’ building consisted of a diverse mix of residential, retail and manufacturing. However, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) was unimpressed by the small businesses and local character of East Harlem. In 1998, ESDC came up with a plan to condemn a number of businesses, including the Minic Custom Woodwork building, in order to transfer the properties to one of the largest developers in New York. The Minnichs’ building and nearby property would become a Costco and Home Depot.486
When the final approval for the redevelopment came through, the Minnichs and many of their neighbors filed a lawsuit challenging the project. However, the trial court ruled that the Minnichs had missed an earlier deadline to appeal based on a prior notice of “determination and findings,” which authorized condemnation of the property at some point in the future. The notice did not mention the right to appeal.487 The Minnichs then brought a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutional sufficiency of the notice requirements of the New York eminent domain law.
Unfortunately, the federal court also ruled that the Minnichs should have brought up their claims before, during the state court proceeding in which the court ruled that they were too late to challenge the condemnation. (The court also ruled that knowledge of the deadline should be imputed to them through their state court lawyer, even though the Minnichs themselves didn’t know about it.)488 The Institute for Justice represented the Minnichs, along with other New York property owners, in the federal lawsuit. Exhausted after years of fighting to keep their building and their business, the Minnichs reluctantly agreed to sell. It will mean the end of their successful family business. They cannot reopen elsewhere, both because they cannot find another suitable location and because the permits they would need are almost impossible to obtain in New York.
The Glen Cove Community Development Agency adopted a resolution to condemn a three-story glass and brick enclosed shopping mall owned by Ardaas, Inc. Ardaas had recently purchased the property and intended to convert the mall into a catering hall/restaurant, a valid use under local zoning laws. The City’s “public use” in taking the property from Ardaas was to reconvey it to a privately owned department store. The New York Appellate Division upheld Glen Cove’s action. The court based its decision on the City’s assertions that a local department store (which had previously expressed interest in purchasing the mall) would attract other businesses, strengthen the local economy and revitalize the area.489
The City of Ithaca has begun condemnation proceedings that will benefit one of two building owners. Gus Lambrou and Thomas Pine each own one half of a commercial building, where Pine also runs his 30-year-old office supply business. Lambrou, who is also a developer, is partnering with Cimenilli Development Co. in an office space/hotel project. Cimenilli and Pine negotiated for several months, but when Cimenilli couldn’t buy the property voluntarily, it requested that the City condemn the building so that Cimenilli and Lambrou could proceed with their project.490
The Jamestown Urban Renewal Agency condemned two properties as part of the City’s west side redevelopment effort. Mattia Miele owns Mattia’s Restaurant, which sits on one of the sites. William and Norma Bendo own the other condemned property, which they lease to a donut shop. Jamestown has consolidated most of the properties in the redevelopment area, but wants to remove these two businesses to make way for future private development. Both Miele and the Bendos challenged the takings, arguing that there was no public purpose involved in the agency’s actions. However, the New York state courts handed both property owners defeats, clearing the way for the agency to take them using eminent domain. The Bendos appealed their case to the Appellate Division, which in February 2002 upheld the taking.491 According to the court, the City’s stated purpose in condemning the Bendos’ building, namely to create economic development stimulus, constitutes a valid public purpose.492
New York City
The New York Times worked out a deal whereby the Empire State Development Corp. (ESDC) would condemn an entire Times Square city block on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st Streets for a new 52-story office tower that will serve as the Times’ new home. The project required that the ESDC condemn and raze 10 properties and a parking lot.
The targeted properties have been subject to condemnation since 1981, when the block was identified under the 42nd Street redevelopment project as a possible site of a merchandise mart. That development never materialized, but the hovering sword of eminent domain depressed real estate values and inhibited private development in the area for two decades. Ironically, most of the blight that served as rationale for the original redevelopment plan is now gone, but now that prosperity has returned to Times Square, the City is moving in to take property from those who stuck with the area in harder times in favor of wealthier developers.
William and Stratford Wallace’s family has owned the property at 620 Eighth Avenue since the turn of the 20th century, and the Wallaces had recently spent over $3 million refurbishing the six-story building on his lot, attracting two major tenants during the late 1990s (the Taylor Business Institute and SAE Institute). Sidney Orbach, along with his two brothers, owned a 16-story building located at 265 West 40th Street with 30 different tenants, including Arnold Hatters and B&J Fabrics. The Sussex House dormitory housed 140 students. All of these residences and more than 30 thriving businesses will be swept away in order to accommodate the New York Times. 493
The price to be paid for the Times’ new digs is $84.94 million, or $62 per square foot, compared with $130 per square foot paid in a private transaction for a nearby parcel. In addition, the Times and its developer will recoup any cost of acquisition that exceeds $84.94 million in rent concessions, a figure the Times itself estimates may come to $29 million. Buried in the 99-year lease agreement is an option provision stating that after 29 years, the Times may buy the site in exchange for one dollar.494
The ESDC officially condemned the properties in September 2001, before the Times’ developer had made any attempt to buy them. The City and the ESDC tried their best to portray the booming Times Square area as a center of prostitution, drug use and loitering. According to a memorandum by state officials, the buildings “generally present a shabby front entrance” to Times Square, and are “developed to only a fraction of their theoretical capacity.”495 The owners sued to prevent the takings, but in April 2002 the trial court sided with the Times and its developers.496 On appeal, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s ruling, and allowed the condemnations to go forward.497 The New York Court of Appeals refused to stay the condemnations.498 Update: In February 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.499
The Times, which has taken a strong editorial position against such redevelopment boondoggles that swindle individuals out of their property,500 has taken a decidedly different corporate stance in the case of its own windfall. As Michael Golden, vice chairman and senior vice president of The Times Company, said in February 2001, “It’s our responsibility to all of the stakeholders in this company to be as competitive as we can be.”501
New York City
One of the more unusual eminent domain situations we have seen involves the efforts of the Lower East Side Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard Street in Manhattan to acquire the nearly identical building next door, 99 Orchard Street. The Tenement Museum, a private, nonprofit museum that first opened in 1988, attempts to recreate for visitors the experience of the millions of poor immigrants who passed through the area after arriving on Ellis Island in the early 20th century. The museum claims that it must have more space to accommodate an elevator for the handicapped and to double the number of visitors to the museum. The problem for the museum is that the owners of No. 99 do not want to sell their building.502 So the museum has asked the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to work on its behalf and condemn No. 99 for the expanded museum facilities.503
The building next door is indeed a former tenement building, but it has been newly renovated as a modern, 15-unit apartment building and has a thriving restaurant on the ground floor. Lou Holtzman and his wife, part-owners of the building, live in one of the apartments. Holtzman grew up in the building and helped his mother run a small business there. His family has owned it since 1910. He believes that using eminent domain to convert actual housing that is not blighted into a fake re-enactment of urban blight from a century ago is not a valid “public use,” and has vowed to fight the museum and ESDC.504
After a hearing on the Tenement Museum’s application to have 99 Orchard Street condemned, the ESDC allowed the application to lapse in May 2002 without any comment. However, the agency did not give Holtzman any assurance that the building will not be condemned at some point in the future. The Tenement Museum still wants the building,505 so property rights advocates nationwide will be closely following the developments in this case.
New York City
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), a private corporation, was looking for a location in lower Manhattan on which to build a new headquarters for its operations. NYSE envisioned a gleaming 900-foot skyscraper above its new stock-trading floor, and eventually decided on a site across the street from the company’s current location. Inconveniently for NYSE, this location was occupied by several residential and commercial properties. Among them were two office buildings owned by J.P. Morgan Chase, an apartment building owned by Rockrose Development and two other properties, both owned by the Wilf family.506
Rather than let the trifling matter of private ownership stand in the way of its plans, NYSE decided its financial interests would be best served by hinting to the City that it might be “forced” to leave Manhattan altogether if it could not enlist the City’s help in acquiring the needed properties.507 Not surprisingly, the New York City Economic Development Corp. complied with NYSE’s wishes, and in January 2001 began the process of condemning the apartment building at 45 Wall Street. In support of its actions, the agency touted the “public benefit” that would be derived from enhancing Manhattan’s position as a worldwide financial center, as well as the theory that NYSE’s departure from the city’s financial district would be detrimental to the city and state economy.508
The tenants’ association of 45 Wall Street challenged the development agency’s public use determination, but in October 2001 a state appeals court agreed with the agency’s findings, citing the familiar platitudes of public benefit, increased tax revenues and economic development. Amazingly, the court found that the “proposed project will incidentally confer a private benefit,” even though the agency’s sole rationale for supporting the condemnation was to facilitate construction of NYSE’s new facility (which is anything but incidental to the overall project).509
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the NYSE project stalled. The Giuliani administration was unable to find a developer willing to build a huge skyscraper in lower Manhattan. City officials are still holding onto some of the properties originally requested by NYSE, in hopes that a new facility of some kind may eventually be built. Until NYSE decides what it wants to do, however, the city and its taxpayers are left holding the bag.510 The redevelopment agency gave 45 Wall Street and the two office buildings back to their owners. The City will continue to pay up to $1 million per month in rent until 45 Wall Street is fully leased. The 435 apartments had been fully leased when the building was condemned. In all, the City and its redevelopment agency lost $109 million on this ill-fated deal.511
St. Luke’s Pentecostal Church, led by Pastor Fred Jenkins, had been saving for more than a decade to purchase property and move out of the rented basement where it holds services. It bought a piece of property on Prospect Avenue to build a permanent home for its congregation. Before purchasing the property, the church obtained a list of exactly what it would need to do to get all the necessary permits for the building. After the purchase, the building department denied the permits because of insufficient parking, an issue never before mentioned.512
After successful litigation to acquire the parking variance, the North Hempstead Community Development Agency condemned the property for private retail development. Unbeknownst to St. Luke’s and the previous owners, the building had been slated for redevelopment in 1994.513 Nobody had bothered to tell St. Luke’s during the discussions about the building permits or when it was struggling to get the parking variance. The head of the agency even testified against issuing the parking variance, but never mentioned that St. Luke’s was only wasting its time and money because he planned to condemn the property regardless of the outcome of the parking situation.514
St. Luke’s conducts extensive community outreach, including paying for members’ funerals, helping the homeless, assisting parishioners with drug counseling, and providing rent money and heating oil to needy families. However, the church property was condemned for private retail development.515
When St. Luke’s tried to object to the condemnation, the NHCDA successfully argued that St. Luke’s opportunity to object had been lost in 1994, before the church had even bought the property. New York has a 30-day window for objecting to condemnations, and the window happens right after the agency approves a redevelopment plan, often long before the condemnation actually takes place.516 St. Luke’s then filed a federal lawsuit, along with other New York plaintiffs and represented by the Institute for Justice, challenging the New York procedures that allowed them to lose their property without proper notice of their opportunity to object. After title passed to the agency and during the federal lawsuit, St. Luke’s discovered that the time limit had never applied, because the condemnation was under an exception to those particular procedures. St. Luke’s then tried to reopen the condemnation, based on this misinformation. In August 2002, the New York state court denied St. Luke’s motion to reopen. The court held not only that state eminent domain laws do not require the NHCDA to provide actual notice to the owners when a property is designated for condemnation,517 but also that inadvertent failure to provide a condemnee with actual notice does not invalidate the taking.518
Cappelli Enterprises, a private developer, is planning to redevelop 4.5 acres along the Hudson River waterfront in Ossining. The land was formerly occupied by a small chemical plant and a bus parking lot, until the Village condemned those properties and transferred them to the developer. Cappelli Enterprises will build Harbor Square, a retail and housing development. The centerpiece of Harbor Square will be a 180-unit upscale apartment complex.519
Bill Brody bought several adjoining, dilapidated buildings in downtown Port Chester, and spent several years restoring them.520 Eventually, Brody rented space to ten small businesses.521 As Brody was improving his buildings, so were other local business owners, like Roqui Vallejo who built an auto repair shop in the area; Pablo Torres, a Dominican grocer; Robinson Plasencia, a Peruvian bakery; and Joan Bischoff, who owned Mediterranean Living, an imported home furnishings store.522 By 2000, the area was thriving, with an eclectic mix of antique shops, Hispanic restaurants and grocery stores, specialty retail, small manufacturing, and apartment buildings. That’s when the Village unveiled a plan to redevelop downtown Port Chester by using eminent domain to force property owners to sell their land to a private developer who wanted to turn the area into a big box shopping center.523 The bait-and-tackle shops in the marina would become a parking area, and the surrounding businesses would become a Costco and Stop & Shop.524 In all, 171 residents and merchants would be forced to relocate.525
Brody received a notice that the Village was condemning his buildings and handing them over to a private developer for part of the Stop & Shop and its parking lot. (The Village also condemned many other buildings, businesses and apartments for the project.) Brody wanted to argue that the taking was not for a valid public use, but discovered that he had missed a 30-day deadline he never knew about.526 The Village had published its public use determination and authorization to condemn in the legal notices section of the newspaper.527 Brody had 30 days from the publication date to challenge the eventual taking of his property, although that fact was not mentioned in the notice. In any event, Brody did not see the notice and therefore did not challenge the future taking at that point.528 To add insult to injury, the Village also sent Brody a $40,000 bill for sidewalk improvements to help out the new owners.529
Brody, along with other New York property owners and represented by the Institute for Justice, brought a federal lawsuit challenging the lack of notice under New York’s eminent domain procedure laws. While he initially obtained a preliminary injunction against the taking, that injunction was reversed on appeal.530 Then, the federal trial court held that Brody should have raised his claims in state court (even though the statute said he could not), and that he therefore could not challenge the procedures in federal court.531 That decision is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
After the Grand Union grocery chain went bankrupt, drugstore giant CVS Pharmacy bought out the leases at a number of the grocery’s former stores. The closure of Grand Union left Warwick’s Main Street without a grocery store; the closest one was now a mile up the road. So Michael Newhard, the Mayor of Warwick, decided that he would force CVS to share its space with a new grocery store. When CVS refused, Newhard began proceedings to condemn the property. Coincidentally, the Mayor is one-fifth owner of another small pharmacy on Main Street, which his brother and sister run. He claims that his decision to condemn CVS was not motivated by his personal interests, but he had to admit that his family’s drugstore would have failed the same “blight study” to which the Village subjected the Grand Union building. In a grievous misinterpretation of American civics and historical tradition, the Mayor believes that “for the Village to be in charge of its destiny is truly American.” Local property owners, on the other hand, are shocked that their town would trample on property rights by seizing property as a means of controlling who gets to do business there.532
In April 2002, Yonkers officials unveiled a plan to build a $25 to 30-million baseball stadium as an anchor for the City’s downtown redevelopment efforts. The new stadium development would include 100,000 square feet of privately owned restaurants, pubs and stores, and would serve as the home for a new minor-league baseball team. Amazingly, left out of the City’s proposal is any explanation as to how Yonkers might enjoy better economic fortunes from having a baseball team. Several other cities in the immediate vicinity are struggling financially despite having teams that play in brand new ballparks. Under the Yonkers plan, the City would own the stadium, but lease it out to the team. The proposed stadium site comprises 12 acres of land, currently occupied by a city-owned parking lot and 19 businesses (including a restaurant, a bakery and several stores). The privately owned portion of the site makes up less than 25 percent of the total land, and the City plans to use eminent domain “if necessary” to force the current owners to sell.533
In May 2002, Mayor John Spencer announced that the merchants had until October to vacate their properties, or else the City would condemn them.534 However, when the issue of property acquisition came up at the Yonkers City Council’s November 2002 meeting, the Council’s majority coalition blocked a measure that would have allowed the City to begin negotiations to buy the properties. Four out of five members did not want to authorize eminent domain and worried that authorizing the appraisals might later mean that they had authorized condemnation.535 Update: In January 2003, the Council approved the appraisals after receiving legal assurance that doing so would not authorize eminent domain.
*These numbers were compiled from news sources. Many cases go unreported, and news reports often do not specify the number of properties against which condemnations were filed or threatened.
†These figures, covering only three years, were compiled by the New York Unified Court System and represent every county except Monroe County, for which information was not available. These numbers look suspiciously low in comparison to other states, but we have not been able to further verify them. Condemnations for traditional public uses are included. At the time of publication, no figures for 2001 or 2002 were available for any of New York State.
484 See A.B. 2738, 224th Sess. (N.Y. 2002); see A.B. 11849, 224th Sess. (N.Y. 2002); see A.B. 7220, 224th Sess. (N.Y. 2002).
485 Phil Reisman, “Owners of Harlem Business Take on City Hall,” The Journal News (Westchester County, N.Y.), Feb. 22, 2001, at 1B.
486 Douglas Montero, “Harlem’s Being Built Up at Little Guy’s Expense,” New York Post, Aug. 6, 1999, at 20.
487 In the Matter of East Harlem Business & Residence Alliance, Inc., 709 N.Y.S. 2d 174, 175 (N.Y. App. 2000).
488 Minnich v. Gargano, No. 00 Civ. 7481, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14760, at *17-*18 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2001).
489 See In re Glen Cove Comm. Redev. Agency, 712 N.Y.S.2d 553, 554 (N.Y. App. 1999).
490 Lauren Bishop, “Property Owner Says Ciminelli offered $746K Office, Hotel Plan Criticized,” The Ithaca Journal, (Dec. 3, 2002).
491 Terry Frank, “Courts OK Eminent Domain Proceedings for 2 Restaurants,” The Buffalo News, May 14, 2002, at B3.
492 Bendo v. Jamestown Urban Renewal Agency, 738 N.Y.S. 2d 615, 616 (N.Y. App. 2002).
493 David W. Dunlap, “Blight to Some Is Home to Others; Concern Over Displacement by a New Times Building,” The New York Times, Oct. 25, 2001, at D1.
494 Gideon Kanner, “Feeding ‘Times’,” The National Law Journal, Jan. 7, 2002, at A29.
495 David W. Dunlap, “Blight to Some Is Home to Others; Concern Over Displacement by a New Times Building,” The New York Times, Oct. 25, 2001, at D1.
496 “Below Market Rate Lease to Newspaper for New Headquarters Use Was Not ‘Waste’; West 41st Street Realty, LLC v. City of New York,” New York Law Journal, Apr. 4, 2002, at 17.
497 See In re Application of West 41st Street Realty LLC, 744 N.Y.S. 2d 121, 126 (N.Y. App. 2002).
498 In re Application of West 41st Street Realty LLC, 749 N.Y.S. 2d 476 (N.Y. 2002).
499 West 41st Street v. New York State Urban Development, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 1159 (Feb. 24, 2003).
500 See, e.g., Nicholas D. Kristof, “Bush and the Texas Land Grab,” The New York Times, July 16, 2002, at A17.
501 David W. Dunlap, “Blight to Some Is Home to Others; Concern Over Displacement by a New Times Building,” The New York Times, Oct. 25, 2001, at D1.
502 Clyde Haberman, “NYC: Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Building?,” The New York Times, Feb. 13, 2002, at B1.
503 Verena Dobnik, “Tenement Museum Wants to Expand, Oust Residents of Former Tenement Next Door,” AP Wire, Apr. 21, 2002.
504 Clyde Haberman, “NYC: Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Building?,” The New York Times, Feb. 13, 2002, at B1.
505 Denny Lee, “Neighborhood Report: Lower East Side; A Tenement Owner Gets a Reprieve as a Museum Peers Over His Shoulder,” The New York Times, Aug. 11, 2002.
506 Eric Herman, “NYSE Building Site May Cost City More,” Daily News (New York, NY), Dec 22, 2000, at Business 93.
507 Andrew Rice, “NYSE’s Chairman Unplugs His Plans for a New Exchange,” The New York Observer, Dec. 3, 2001, at 1.
508 See In re Application of Fisher, 730 N.Y.S. 2d 516, 516-17 (N.Y. App. 2001).
509 Id. at 516-17.
510 Andrew Rice, “NYSE’s Chairman Unplugs His Plans for a New Exchange,” The New York Observer, Dec. 3, 2001, at 1.
511 Charles V. Bagli, “45 Wall St. Is Renting Again Where Tower Deal Failed,” The New York Times, Feb. 8, 2003, at B3.
512 Stewart Ain, “Of Spiritual vs. Urban Renewal,” The New York Times, Apr. 16, 2000, at 14LI 3.
513 In the Matter of the Application of North Hempstead Community Redevelopment Agency, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1488, at *1-*2 (Aug. 29, 2002).
514 Stewart Ain, “Of Spiritual vs. Urban Renewal,” The New York Times, Apr. 16, 2000, at 14LI 3.
515 Marni Soupcoff, “North Hempstead Bulldozes Constitutional Rights,” The Westbury Times (Mineola, NY), Feb. 22, 2002.
516 Victor Manuel Ramos, “In North Hempstead: A Spiritual Homecoming Deferred; Redevelopment Claims Dream of Church’s Building,” Newsday, Feb. 4, 2001, at G17.
517 In the Matter of the Application of North Hempstead Community Redevelopment Agency, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1488, at *6-*7.
518 Id. at *7.
519 Elsa Brenner, “Plan for Ossining Waterfront Is Scaled Down,” The New York Times, Jan. 27, 2002, at K7.
520 Minnich v. Gargano, 2001 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 372, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2001), vacated, 261 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2001).
521 Laura Mansnerus, “Fairness of New York Condemnation Procedures at Issue in Property Owners’ Lawsuit,” The New York Times, Oct. 8, 2000, at A44.
522 Al Baker, “Port Chester Merchants Angered By Relocation,” The New York Times, June 18, 2000, at 14WC5
523 See, e.g., Len Maniace, “A Day in the Life of Port Chester,” The Journal News (Westchester County, N.Y.), Apr. 23, 2002, at 1K; Len Maniace, “Living Here in Westchester,” The Journal News (Westchester County, N.Y.), Oct. 20, 2002, at 84X; Len Maniace, “Village May Get New Catering Hall,” The Journal News (Westchester County, N.Y.), Sept. 9, 2002, at 1B.
524 Ron X. Gumucio, “G & S Seeks Funds,” The Journal News (Westchester County, N.Y.), June 8, 2001, at 1A.
525 Al Baker, “Port Chester Merchants Angered By Relocation,” The New York Times, June 18, 2000, at 14WC5.
526 See Minnich v. Gargano, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14760, at *19-20 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2001).
527 “Lights, Camera… ,” Westchester County Business Journal, July 9, 2001, at 1; see also Minnich v. Gargano, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14760, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2001).
528 Minnich v. Gargano, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14760, at *7, 20 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2001).
529 Jessica Cohn, “Businesses Object to Sidewalk Project,” The Journal News (Westchester County, N.Y.), Mar. 9, 2000, at 1B.
530 Brody v. Village of Port Chester, 261 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2001); “Port Chester Wins Eminent Domain Appeal,” Westchester County Business Journal, Aug. 20, 2001, at 2.
531 Minnich v. Gargano, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14760, at *16-17, 21-22 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2001).
532 Matthew Purdy, “Condemning a Drug Site (It’s CVS),” The New York Times, July 31, 2002, at B1.
533 Winnie Hu, “Minor League Ballpark Planned for Yonkers,” The New York Times, Apr. 10, 2002, at B5.
534 Norman MacLean, “Stormin’ with Norman,” The Sports Network, May 10, 2002.
535 Rich Calder, “Delay in Negotiations May Imperil Yonkers Ballpark,” The Journal News (Westchester County, N.Y.), Dec. 3, 2002, at 1A.