Sun Co. v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency

625 N.Y.S.2d 371, 209 A.D.2d 34 (1995)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Sun Co. v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
625 N.Y.S.2d 371, 209 A.D.2d 34 (1995)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

In 1987, the City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency (SIDA) (defendant) and the city of Syracuse (the city) announced a master plan for the redevelopment of approximately 800 acres of land near Onondaga Lake. SIDA sought to develop a retail center, known as the Carousel Landing Project (the project), to economically revitalize the area, reduce physical blight, create employment, improve aesthetics, and alleviate environmental problems. SIDA entered into a preferred development agreement with Pyramid Companies (Pyramid), designating Pyramid as a preferred developer for the project. Sun Company, Inc., and several other oil companies (collectively, the oil companies) (plaintiffs) owned property near the south shore of Onondaga Lake where SIDA wanted to develop the project. In the preferred development agreement, SIDA agreed to acquire the oil companies’ properties for the development of the project. Pyramid agreed to pay SIDA for the value of the properties, and SIDA agreed to use the funds to provide the owners of the condemned property compensation. SIDA condemned the oil companies’ properties. The oil companies met with city officials to propose an alternative to the project, but the city stated that it was bound by the preferred development agreement and could not adopt the oil companies’ proposal. The oil companies challenged the condemnation and, among other things, contended that the statutory condemnation scheme that granted an industrial development agency (IDA) the power to condemn property was facially unconstitutional and that SIDA improperly delegated and surrendered its authority to exercise eminent-domain power. The oil companies sought an annulment under Eminent Domain Procedure Law 207 (EDPL 207) of SIDA’s determination to condemn their properties.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Boehm, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership