Legal Opinion
Barnes v. Binghamton Urban Renewal Agency
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 29, 1985PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
D. Bruce Crew, III, J.
Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the designation by the Binghamton Urban Renewal Agency (BURA) of Sarbro Realty Corporation (Sarbro) as a qualified and eligible sponsor for the development of urban renewal site 5A, property which is owned by BURA. They also challenge the approval by the Binghamton City Council (City) of the sale by BURA of that property to Sarbro. Finally, petitioners seek review of BURA’s and the City’s refusal to consider petitioner Barnes’ proposal for development of that site. At this juncture the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. v. WalkleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Boryszewski v. BrydgesNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Nys Law Enforcement Employees v. CuomoNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Wambat Realty Corp. v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Abrams v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Jerkens Truck & Equipment, Inc. v. City YonkersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- 106 Mile Transport Associates v. KochDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987
- Coalition Against Columbus Center v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Creole Enterprises, Inc. v. GiulianiNew York Supreme Court · 1995