Opinion
May 15, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.).
The scope of judicial review under EDPL 207 (C) is limited to consideration of whether
"`(1) the proceeding was in conformity with the federal and state constitutions,
"`(2) the proposed acquisition is within the condemnor's statutory jurisdiction or authority,
"`(3) the condemnor's determination and findings were made in accordance with procedures set forth in this article, and
"`(4) a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition.'" (Greenwich Assocs. v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 152 A.D.2d 216, 219.)
Nevertheless, "the Court of Appeals has held that this limited judicial review does not contemplate a de novo consideration of the issues, or a determination as to whether the condemnor's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. (Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 418.) Rather, the court's review is confined to whether the procedural requirements of EDPL article 2 were met and, with respect to the substantive determination and findings, whether there exists a rational factual basis therefor". (Greenwich Assocs. v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 152 A.D.2d, supra, at 219; Long Is. R.R. Co. v. Long Is. Light. Co., 103 A.D.2d 156, 168, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1088.)
Here, the claimant does not contest that the city has a general power of condemnation nor is there a claim that the condemnation herein is beyond the city's statutory authority, but rather merely that the trial court erred in refusing to adopt the highest and best use for the subject property as described by the claimant's appraiser and in giving weight to the city's appraisal.
Nevertheless, since a rational basis supports the city's finding that the claimant was entitled to $2,476,500 for the 55 parcels of the subject property acquired by the city in the underlying condemnation proceeding, there is no basis to set aside the determination. (Greenwich Assocs. v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 152 A.D.2d 216, 219, supra; Vic's Automotive Servs. v. State of New York, 91 A.D.2d 1115.)
Concur — Ross, J.P., Carro, Kassal, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.