W.J.F. Realty Corp. v. State
1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 160, 672 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 176 Misc. 2d 763 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An environmental protection statute that restricts land use is not facially unconstitutional as a taking if it provides adequate administrative procedures for landowners to seek relief, such as hardship permits, and ensures just compensation, which may include Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), upon a judicial finding of a taking.
Facts:
- The New York Legislature enacted the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act ('the Act') to preserve the natural resources of the Pine Barrens.
- The Act established a commission to oversee development within a designated protected 'core area'.
- Plaintiffs are owners of real property located within the area regulated by the Act.
- The Act's provisions restricted the plaintiffs' ability to develop their properties.
- The Act contains a mechanism for landowners to apply for building permits upon a showing of hardship.
- The Act also provides for Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) and allows the state to acquire land through eminent domain if a taking is found.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, including W.J.F. Realty Corp., filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, a state trial court of first instance.
- The suit challenged the constitutionality of the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act as written and as applied.
- Defendants, the State of New York and related entities, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
- The trial court converted the defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act, which restricts land development but provides for hardship permits, Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), and potential acquisition through eminent domain, constitute an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation on its face?
Opinions:
Majority - William L. Underwood, Jr., J.
No. The Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act does not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property on its face because it promotes a legitimate government interest and provides constitutionally permissible remedies for affected landowners. The Act is presumed constitutional, and the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. The Act is not a taking because it provides multiple procedural safeguards: landowners can apply for a hardship permit which must be decided within 60 days, and they are entitled to judicial review of any adverse decision. The court interprets the Act’s provision that the commission 'may acquire such land' through eminent domain as a mandatory requirement to provide just compensation if a taking is found, thereby rendering it constitutional. Furthermore, the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) offered under the Act are a valid component of a compensation scheme, distinguishing this case from precedents where TDRs were deemed illusory, because here they are one of several options available to the landowner.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that states possess broad police powers to enact environmental regulations that restrict private property use, provided such regulations are not arbitrary and include procedural safeguards. It establishes that a regulatory scheme is not a facial taking if it offers landowners a meaningful opportunity to obtain relief or compensation, thereby avoiding a final, unconstitutional application of the law. The court's willingness to interpret a permissive term ('may acquire') as mandatory to save the statute from unconstitutionality demonstrates a strong judicial deference to legislative environmental goals. This case provides a blueprint for how legislatures can craft robust environmental laws that can withstand facial constitutional challenges.
Unlock the full brief for W.J.F. Realty Corp. v. State