Property owner filed petition against county’s industrial development agency and developer seeking to annul the agency’s authorization of the condemnation of owner’s property in connection with the redevelopment of a former shopping mall.
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that:
- Agency’s intended use for owner’s property was not residential or retail in nature, and thus, agency’s acquisition of the property was within agency’s statutory jurisdiction;
- Any challenge to agency’s authority to finance project that contained residential component was properly raised in an article 78 proceeding;
- Even if agency was constitutionally required to establish source of just compensation for owner, it did so;
- Agency’s review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) was not improperly deferred or segmented; and
- Agency’s redevelopment of the mall would serve a legitimate public use.