Opinion
December 15, 1986
Adjudged that the determination and findings are confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The petitioner's contention that the proposed operations center will not constitute a public use of the subject property is unpersuasive in light of the evidence adduced at the public hearings (see, Matter of Neptune Assoc. v. Consolidated Edison Co., 125 A.D.2d 473 [decided herewith]).
Moreover, we disagree with the petitioner's claim that the acquisition of its property by the respondent is ultra vires. The hearing record supports the determination that the petitioner's property is needed by the respondent in order to carry out its public function; hence the acquisition by eminent domain is authorized because it is "necessary for [the respondent's] corporate purposes" (Transportation Corporations Law § 11 [3-a]; see, Matter of Neptune Assoc. v. Consolidated Edison Co., supra; Cuglar v. Power Auth., 4 Misc.2d 879, 901, affd 4 A.D.2d 801, affd 3 N.Y.2d 1006).
Additionally, the Hearing Officer's findings concerning the many advantages offered by the site and the lack of adverse environmental and traffic impacts are supported by the evidence in the record and we discern no basis for disturbing them (see generally, Town of Coxsackie v. Dernier, 105 A.D.2d 966; Long Is. R.R. Co. v. Long Is. Light. Co., 103 A.D.2d 156, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1088; Matter of Dowling Coll. v. Flacke, 78 A.D.2d 551).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are beyond our scope of review (see, EDPL § 207; Matter of Neptune Assoc. v Consolidated Edison Co., supra; Matter of First Broadcasting Corp. v City of Syracuse, 78 A.D.2d 490, appeal dismissed 53 N.Y.2d 939; see generally, Pizzuti v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 114 A.D.2d 943, affd 67 N.Y.2d 603; Village Auto Body Works v. Incorporated Vil. of Westbury, 90 A.D.2d 502, appeal dismissed 58 N.Y.2d 778). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.