Legal Opinion

Amsterdam Urban Renewal Agency v. Bohlke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 26, 1972PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, entered in Montgomery County, which dismissed plaintiff’s petition for the condemnation of defendant’s real property. By answer to the petition, respondent contended that his property was not necessary to appellant’s redevelopment plan (see General Municipal Law, § 555) and not taken for a public purpose (see Condemnation Law, § 4). The trial court correctly held that absent allegations that the taking was arbitrary or capricious, respondent could not raise the questions of the necessity for the taking (Culgar v. Power Auth. of State of N. Y., 4…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kaskel v. ImpellitteriNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
  2. Matter of N.Y. City H. Authority v. MullerNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  3. Matter of Murray v. LaguardiaNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
  4. Cuglar v. Power AuthorityNew York Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Murray v. LaGuardiaNew York Supreme Court · 1943

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. New York State Urban Development Corp. v. Vanderlex Merchandise Co.New York Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Schenectady Urban Renewal Agency v. BucciNew York Supreme Court · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API