On the eve of what may be the final court showdown of a drawn-out legal dispute over West Harlem property rights, both parties in the case are fine-tuning their oral arguments to be heard before a panel of seven judges on June 1—and anticipating curveball questions every step of the way.
Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage owner Nick Sprayregen and gas station owners Gurnam Singh and Parminder Kaur are the last private landowners in Columbia’s proposed 17-acre expansion zone in Manhattanville who have not struck deals with the University. The New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division ruled in an unexpected 3-2 decision last December that eminent domain—the process by which the state can seize private property for “public use” in exchange for market-rate compensation—is illegal, which was a major victory for Sprayregen, Singh, and Kaur.
The opposing party, the Empire State Development Corporation—the state body that approved eminent domain for the project in December 2008—appealed the decision in January. This brought the case to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.
As they gear up for the June 1 hearing, the petitioner-respondents to ESDC’s appeal (Sprayregen, Singh, Kaur, and their lawyers), as well as uninvolved parties who support them, have shared their thoughts and predictions about the case. An air of optimism has long resonated with the petitioners, who say that the December Appellate Division ruling in their favor could bode well for them in the Court of Appeals.
“We’re not that nervous because I think the last hearing gave us a really big boost of confidence, and I feel that this time, too, things will fall into place,” Kaur said. “If all is fair in this world, then the decision will be in our favor, and if it’s not, then the world really is corrupted."
Kaur and Singh’s attorney, David Smith, admits that he is a bit more anxious, but nonetheless "cautiously optimistic," a phrase that both he and Norman Siegel, Sprayregen’s attorney, have repeatedly used throughout the litigation process.
“As with anything, we’re always nervous before, because this is very important to our clients," Smith said. "I think that one of the great things is that after many years of experience, Norman and myself know how to channel our nervousness into productive work."
Smith added that during the oral arguments, he expects the court to hone in on controversy surrounding the petitioners' Freedom of Information Law requests, a separate but related case in which ESDC refused to disclose certain eminent domain-related documents regarding a 2004 agreement between the ESDC and Columbia several years ago. After Sprayregen and Siegel challenged ESDC’s right to withhold these documents, the Court of Appeals ruled in December that under FOIL, ESDC must disclose them.
What makes the FOIL matter particularly significant, Smith said, is that the same panel of judges who presided over that case will hear Tuesday's case surrounding the eminent domain dispute, and much of the ESDC’s right to invoke eminent domain—or lack thereof—is explicated in the very documents the ESDC had originally refused to hand over.
“I think it’s [the FOIL documents] going to be a strong point of contention, and I think that case will be very important here,” Smith said.
Siegel said that he and Smith will also be seeking to distinguish this case from previous eminent domain cases. Of particular interest will be Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation. Decided just a week before the December Appellate Court case on Manhattanville, the Court of Appeals decided in a 6-1 ruling to uphold the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards site in Brooklyn, a mixed-used commercial and residential development. But Siegel and Smith say that despite what some say are two similar cases, the two in reality are substantially different.
“We’re looking forward to telling the Court of Appeals ... that there was bad faith, that the Manhattanville community is not blighted, that the blight study used a biased methodology, and that it was an error for ESDC to disclose the record before we received documents that we were entitled to, and as a result, the court should affirm the Appellate Division decision and annual ESDC’s determination,” Siegel said. He added that he expects the Court of Appeals to deliver a decision mid-summer.
Longtime supporters of the petitioner-respondents will be attending the case tomorrow, including State Senator Bill Perkins, a Harlem representative who has opposed the use of eminent domain for Columbia’s proposed expansion.
“They [ESDC] have a hurdle to overcome, not us—they have two strikes against them,” Perkins said in a recent interview. “The first is that they lost on the lower court, and the second is the FOIL issue.”
And though the respondents said they are not focusing on hypotheticals should the court rule in ESDC’s favor, others have anticipated the implications of a loss for the property owners.
“Should the ESDC and Columbia prevail, it would be another step back for constitutional democracy on a number of fronts, from property rights to due process to Eminent Domain Procedure Law in the State of New York,” Ben Totushek, GS and a member of Columbia’s Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification, said. “Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.”
ESDC does not comment on pending litigation.
Maggie Astor contributed reporting.
COMMENTS
Comments will be moderated in accordance with our comment policy