## Facts

- W.J.F. Realty Corp. and other landowners owned largely undeveloped parcels in the Long Island Central Pine Barrens region.
- A state environmental statute designated substantial land as a “core preservation area,” where new development was generally barred absent case-specific approval.
- The statute created a Pine Barrens Commission to review development applications, grant hardship-type relief, and make parcel-specific determinations concerning potential takings.
- The statute provided remedial mechanisms, including transfer of development rights (TDRs) and, if a taking were found, potential acquisition through eminent domain with compensation.
- The landowners alleged the restrictions effectively sterilized their property’s economic use.
- The landowners brought a facial constitutional challenge without first pursuing hardship relief, TDRs, or other administrative determinations under the statutory scheme.

## Issues

1. Whether the statute’s development restrictions, on their face, effected an unconstitutional regulatory taking without just compensation.
2. Whether the statute’s remedial structure (including TDRs and potential condemnation) was constitutionally inadequate.
3. Whether the takings claim was premature because the landowners had not pursued available administrative and remedial procedures to obtain relief or a final determination.
4. Whether the statute violated substantive or procedural due process as an arbitrary or irrational exercise of state power.

## Decision

- The court granted the State’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint.
- The court held the statute was a valid exercise of the State’s police power to protect an environmentally sensitive region.
- The court rejected the facial takings challenge because the statute’s mechanisms (Commission review, hardship relief, TDRs, and a condemnation backstop) prevented a showing that the law necessarily caused an uncompensated taking in all applications.
- The court treated any parcel-specific taking claim as requiring use of the statutory procedures before judicial adjudication.
- The court rejected due process challenges, finding the statute nonarbitrary and supported by environmental purposes, with adequate procedures and judicial review.

## Legal Principles

- A facial regulatory-takings challenge fails absent a showing that the statute necessarily results in a taking in all applications; where a statute provides case-by-case relief and compensation pathways, facial invalidation is disfavored.
- Takings claims generally require a final, concrete application of the regulatory scheme to the property; failure to pursue available administrative determinations and relief can render the claim premature.
- Transfer of development rights and related mitigation/compensation devices may be considered in assessing whether restrictions leave owners without economically viable use and whether compensation mechanisms exist.
- Environmental land-use regulation aimed at protecting significant natural resources is a permissible exercise of the police power when it is rationally related to legitimate public purposes and includes procedural safeguards and judicial review.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Pine Barrens land-use restrictions against a facial constitutional attack, concluding that the statute’s administrative review, hardship relief, TDR program, and condemnation backstop prevented the landowners from establishing an uncompensated taking or due process violation without first pursuing the statute’s parcel-specific remedies.


W.J.F. Realty Corp. v. State, 672 N.Y.S.2d 1007 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cnty. 1998)