## Facts

- A New York public benefit corporation with eminent domain authority sponsored the Atlantic Yards project, a 22-acre redevelopment in downtown Brooklyn to be built by a private developer.
- The project included a professional sports arena, upgrades to rail and subway access, a platform over rail yards, multiple residential and commercial towers (including affordable housing), retail and office space, and publicly accessible open space.
- The agency designated the project area as “substandard and insanitary” under the Urban Development Corporation Act, supporting the project as a “land use improvement project” intended to eliminate blight and achieve other public benefits.
- Property owners and tenants within the footprint challenged the designation and proposed condemnation, arguing the area was not truly blighted and that the taking primarily benefited a private developer.
- After unsuccessful federal constitutional litigation, petitioners brought a state proceeding under EDPL § 207 to challenge the agency’s condemnation determination; the intermediate appellate court upheld the determination.

## Issues

1. Whether condemning property for a land use improvement project aimed at blight removal and redevelopment constitutes a “public use” under N.Y. Const. art. I, § 7 when a private developer will implement the project.
2. What level of judicial review applies to an agency’s quasi-legislative findings that an area is “substandard and insanitary” (blighted) under the governing statute.
3. Whether the condemnation should be invalidated as a pretextual transfer of property for private gain rather than a genuine public purpose.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed and upheld the condemnation determination.
- The court held that blight removal and comprehensive redevelopment are permissible public uses under the state constitution.
- The court applied strong deference to the agency’s blight and public-purpose determinations and found record support for the “substandard and insanitary” finding.
- The court rejected the claim that the asserted public purposes were merely incidental or pretextual compared to the private developer’s benefits.

## Legal Principles

- A taking satisfies the New York “public use” requirement when undertaken for recognized public purposes such as blight removal and urban redevelopment, even if a private developer profits from implementation.
- Courts generally defer to legislative or quasi-legislative agency determinations of blight and public purpose and will not substitute their judgment absent a showing that the determination is irrational, baseless, or arbitrary.
- EDPL review is confined to the administrative record and does not permit courts to conduct a de novo assessment of planning merits or neighborhood conditions.
- Allegations of pretext do not invalidate a redevelopment taking where the record supports substantial, non-incidental public benefits and the condemnation authority acts within its statutory mandate.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the Atlantic Yards condemnations, holding that blight removal and redevelopment qualified as public uses under the New York Constitution and that the agency’s blight finding and public-purpose determination were entitled to judicial deference because they were supported by the record and not irrational or baseless.


Goldstein v. N.Y. State Urban Dev. Corp., 921 N.E.2d 164 (N.Y. 2009)