The petition had asked the Court to address the appropriate constitutional limits on the government’s power to seize private homes for the benefit of powerful real estate developers like Bruce Ratner.
BROOKLYN, NY -- The United States Supreme Court denied the petition to grant a hearing (cert petition) to eleven property owners and tenants who asked the court to hear their appeal on the Second Circuit Court’s dismissal of their challenge to the use of eminent domain for Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards development proposal in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn. The petition received serious consideration by the Court. In a rare statement accompanying the denial (it's unusual to have any statement at all when a petition is denied), Justice Alito said he would grant the petition. However, four Justices are required to accept the case.
The Court’s denial of the petition in Goldstein et al. v. Pataki et al. does not affirm or deny the plaintiffs’ arguments, and was not a ruling one way or the other on the plaintiffs' claims. And, it is not the end of the legal road for the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, fighting to prevent the seizure of their homes and businesses for the benefit of Forest City Ratner, will now pursue their eminent domain challenge in state court under New York State law.
"We are, of course, disappointed that the Court declined our request to hear this important case. This is not, however, a ruling on the merits of our claims. Our claims remain sound. New York State law, and the state constitution, prohibit the government from taking private homes and businesses simply because a powerful developer demands it. Yet, that is what has happened. Recent events have revealed that the public, and the Public Authorities Control Board were sold a bill of goods by Ratner and the Empire State Development Corporation. We now know that Ratner’s project will cost the public much more than it will ever receive," said lead attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP. "Now we will turn to the state courts to vindicate our rights. We will soon file an action in New York state court under state law as we were expressly permitted to do by the rulings of the federal courts."
Besides the eleven plaintiffs on Goldstein et al. v. Pataki et al. there are approximately 30 other residents and business owners in the project’s footprint whose properties would be seized for Forest City Ratner’s benefit.
The plaintiffs will no proceed to the state courts to vindicate their rights. They will soon file an action inNew York state court under state law as the federal court rulings permitted them to do.