Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,257 |Likes:
Published by Casey Seiler
Court of Appeals decision
Court of Appeals decision

More info:

Categories:Types, Brochures
Published by: Casey Seiler on Jun 04, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision beforepublication in the New York Reports.-----------------------------------------------------------------No. 87 James Square Associates LP, etal.,Respondents,v.Dennis Mullen, Commissioner New York State Department of EconomicDevelopment, et al.,Appellants.---------------------------------No. 88In the Matter of J-P Group, LLC,Respondent,v.New York State Department of Economic Development, et al.,Appellants,et al.,Respondent.---------------------------------No. 89In the Matter of Morris Builders,LP, et al.,Respondents,v.Empire Zone Designation Board etal.,Appellants.---------------------------------No. 90In the Matter of HagueCorporation,Respondent,v.Empire Zone Designation Board, etal.,Appellants.---------------------------------No. 91In the Matter of WL, LLC,Respondent-Appellant,v.Department of EconomicDevelopment, Also Known as Empire
State Development, et al.,Appellants-Respondents.Case No. 87:Andrew D. Bing, for appellants. Jonathan B. Fellows, for respondents.Case No. 88:Andrew D. Bing, for appellants. Jennifer C. Persico, for respondent.Case No. 89:Andrew D. Bing, for appellants.Philip M. Halpern, for respondents.Case No. 90:Andrew D. Bing, for appellants.Michelle L. Merola, for respondent.Case No. 91:Robert K. Weiler, for respondent-appellant.Andrew D. Bing, for appellants-respondents.LIPPMAN, Chief Judge: The common question presented by these appeals iswhether the retroactive application of the 2009 Amendments to theEmpire Zones Programcomplies with the Due Process Clause of theFifth Amendment. Evaluating these cases under the balancing testof Matter of Replan Dev. v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of - 1 -
- 2 -No. 87, 88, 89, 90, 91City of N.Y.
(70 NY2d 451, 456 [1987]), we conclude that theretroactive application of the 2009 Amendments violatedplaintiffs' due process rights and affirmon slightly differentgrounds fromthose invoked by the Appellate Division.I. FACTS and PROCEDURAL HISTORYA. The Empire Zones ProgramIn 1986, the legislature enacted New York State'sEconomic Development Zones Act (the EDZ Program). The goal of the EDZ Programwas to stimulate private investment, privatebusiness development, and job creation in certain geographicareas characterized by persistent poverty, high unemployment,shrinking tax bases, and dependence on public assistance (seeGeneral Municipal Law § 956). The EDZ Programoffered a varietyof state tax incentives designed to attract new businesses to thestate and to enable existing businesses to expand and create more jobs (see id.). Over time, the EDZ Programgradually shifted itsfocus on poverty reduction to business development by relaxingeligibility requirements, and the name of the programwas changedto the Empire Zones ProgramAct (the Program) in May of 2000(L 2000, ch 63, Part GG).
See also New York State Office of the Comptroller,Assessing the Empire Zones Program: Reforms Needed to ImproveProgramEvaluation and Effectiveness (April 2004), available athttp://osc.state.ny.us/reports/empirezone3-2005.pd
(accessed May28, 2013).
 The Empire Zones Programis overseen by theDepartment of Economic Development and the Empire StateDevelopment Corporation pursuant to General Municipal Law Article18-B.- 2 -

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->