## Facts

- Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), a state public-benefit corporation, approved a plan to condemn and assemble approximately 17 acres in Manhattanville (West Harlem) for a redevelopment project associated with Columbia University’s campus expansion.
- The project area ran from West 125th Street to West 133rd Street, bounded generally by Broadway/Old Broadway and 12th Avenue, and consisted largely of industrial and commercial parcels.
- ESDC relied on planning and condition studies describing the area as “substandard and insanitary,” citing deterioration, underutilization, contamination, and code and safety issues.
- After environmental review and a public hearing, ESDC issued a determination and findings under EDPL § 204 authorizing condemnation and characterizing the plan as both a “land use improvement project” and a “civic project” under the Urban Development Corporation Act.
- Property owners and small businesses within the footprint challenged the taking, arguing the blight designation was pretextual, the project principally benefited a private institution, and the process violated due process and SEQRA.

## Issues

1. Whether the condemnation served a constitutionally sufficient “public use, benefit or purpose” under N.Y. Const. art. I, § 7 and EDPL § 207(C)(4).
2. Whether ESDC’s blight determination and its classification of the project as a land use improvement project and/or civic project had a rational basis warranting judicial deference.
3. Whether the approval process violated procedural due process or SEQRA.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and confirmed ESDC’s EDPL § 204 determination and findings.
- The court held that ESDC’s blight findings and “land use improvement project” determination were rationally based and therefore upheld under EDPL § 207 review.
- The court separately held that the project also had a rational basis as a “civic project,” because higher-education uses can qualify as civic purposes even if a private nonprofit institution is the immediate beneficiary.
- The court rejected claims of procedural due process and SEQRA violations, finding adequate notice and hearing opportunities and sufficient environmental review.

## Legal Principles

- Under EDPL § 207(C)(4), a condemnation determination may be set aside only if it is without foundation (irrational or baseless); courts do not reweigh the merits of redevelopment planning.
- Blight remediation and elimination of “substandard and insanitary” conditions are recognized public purposes supporting the use of eminent domain.
- An agency’s public-purpose and blight determinations receive substantial deference where supported by studies and an administrative record; courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the designated decisionmaker.
- A redevelopment may satisfy the public-purpose requirement even when a private entity is the primary immediate beneficiary, so long as the public purposes asserted (such as blight remediation or civic/educational use) are rationally supported.
- EDPL public hearing procedures and SEQRA compliance are satisfied when affected parties receive notice and an opportunity to be heard and when the agency identifies and addresses environmental impacts in its findings.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals upheld ESDC’s use of eminent domain for the Manhattanville redevelopment, holding that the agency’s blight and civic-purpose determinations had a rational basis and that, under limited EDPL review, the condemnations could proceed notwithstanding significant private benefit to Columbia University.


Matter of Kaur v. N.Y. State Urb. Dev. Corp., 15 N.Y.3d 235 (N.Y. 2010)