Arguing that the project will benefit a private party and that the proposed condemnation will there by violate the constitutional restraints against the condemning private party to give another private party will fail as long as it could be said the public purpose is dominant. See Waldo’s, Inc. v Vill. Of Johnson City, 74 NY2d 718, 720 (1989); see also Yonkers Cmty. Dev. Agency v Morris, 27 NY2d 478, 482 (1975). Virtually any purpose will be acceptable including the condemnation of a historic waterfront for a shopping mall… read more
May 6, 2019