Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., No. 13-3900-cv (2d Cir. July 16, 2014)

Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., No. 13-3900-cv (2d Cir. July 16, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,103|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5
Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., No. 13-3900-cv (2d Cir. July 16, 2014)
Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., No. 13-3900-cv (2d Cir. July 16, 2014)

More info:

Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Jul 22, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

01/09/2015

pdf

text

original

 
13
3900
cvKurtz
 
v.
 
Verizon
 
New
 
York,
 
Inc.
UNITED
 
STATES
 
COURT
 
OF
 
APPEALSFOR
 
THE
 
SECOND
 
CIRCUIT
August
 
Term,
 
2013(Argued:
 
April
 
11,
 
2014
 
Decided:
 
 July
 
16,
 
2014)
12
Docket
 
No.
 
13
3900
cv
34
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
x
56
 JACK
 
KURTZ,
 
on
 
 behalf
 
of
 
himself
 
and
7
all
 
others
 
similarly
 
situated,
 
 JOSEPH
8
GRILLO,
 
husband,
 
VIVIAN
 
GRILLO,
 
wife,
 
9
 JEFF
 
MICHAELS,
 
husband,
 
BARBARA
10
MICHAELS,
 
wife,
 
31
11
 
30TH
 
AVE
 
LLC,
 
11
AGRINIOS
 
REALTY
 
INC.,
 
K.A.P.
 
REALTY
12
INC.,
 
LINDA
 
DAVIS,
 
PETER
 
BLIDY,
13
VASILIOS
 
CHRYSIKOS,
 
3212
 
ASTORIA
 
BLVD.
14
REALTY
 
CORP.,
 
MNT
 
REALTY
 
LLC,
 
ANTHONY
 
15
CARDELLA,
 
BRIAN
 
CARDELLA,
 
46
06
 
30TH
16
AVENUE
 
REALTY
 
CORP.,
 
CATHERINE
 
PICCIONE,
17
CROMWELL
 
ASSOC.
 
LLC,
1819
Plaintiffs
Appellants
 
 ,
2021
v.
2223
VERIZON
 
NEW
 
YORK,
 
INC.,
 
FKA
 
NEW
 
YORK
24
TELEPHONE
 
COMPANY,
 
VERIZON
25
COMMUNICATIONS
 
INC.,
 
IVAN
 
G.
 
SEIDENBERG,
26
LOWELL
 
C.
 
M
C
ADAM,
 
RANDALL
 
S.
 
MILCH,
27
 
 JOHN
 
DOES,
12
Defendants
Appellees
 
.
*
34
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
x
56
Before: JACOBS,
 
CALABRESI
 
and
 
LIVINGSTON,
 
Circuit
7
 Judges.
89
The
 
Plaintiffs
Appellants,
 
a
 
putative
 
plaintiff
 
class
 
of
 
property
 
owners
 
in
10
New
 
York,
 
appeal
 
from
 
a
 
 judgment
 
of
 
the
 
United
 
States
 
District
 
Court
 
for
 
the
11
Eastern
 
District
 
of
 
New
 
York
 
(Irizarry,
 
 J.),
 
dismissing
 
their
 
takings
 
and
 
due
12
process
 
claims
 
as
 
unripe
 
under
 
the
 
two
part
 
test
 
in
 
Williamson
 
Cnty.
 
Reg’l
13
Planning
 
Comm’n
 
v.
 
Hamilton
 
Bank
 
of
 
 Johnson
 
City,
 
473
 
U.S.
 
172
 
(1985).
 
We
14
conclude
 
that
 
1)
 
Williamson
 
County
 
applies
 
to
 
physical
 
takings
 
claims
 
as
 
it
 
does
15
to
 
regulatory
 
takings,
 
with
 
the
 
recognition
 
that
 
an
 
allegation
 
of
 
a
 
physical
 
taking
16
satisfies
 
the
 
finality
 
requirement;
 
and
 
2)
 
Williamson
 
County
 
applies
 
to
17
procedural
 
due
 
process
 
claims
 
arising
 
from
 
the
 
same
 
circumstances
 
as
 
a
 
takings
18
claim.
 
Affirmed.
 
192021 
*
 
The
 
Clerk
 
of
 
Court
 
is
 
respectfully
 
directed
 
to
 
amend
 
the
 
official
 
captionin
 
this
 
case
 
to
 
conform
 
with
 
the
 
caption
 
above.
2
 
DAVID
 
M.
 
WISE,
 
Law
 
Offices
 
of
 
David
 
M.
1
Wise,
 
P.A.,
 
Cranford,
 
NJ,
 
for
 
Plaintiffs
2
Appellants.
34
PATRICK
 
F.
 
PHILBIN
 
(John
 
S.
 
Moran,
 
on
5
the
 
 brief),
 
Kirkland
 
&
 
Ellis
 
LLP,
6
Washington,
 
DC,
 
for
 
Defendants
7
Appellees.
8910
DENNIS
 
 JACOBS,
 
Circuit
 
 Judge:
1112
New
 
York
 
allows
 
telecommunications
 
companies
 
to
 
exercise
 
the
 
state’s
13
eminent
 
domain
 
powers
 
to
 
facilitate
 
the
 
construction
 
and
 
maintenance
 
of
14
telecommunications
 
networks.
 
Property
 
owners
 
are
 
compensated
 
 by
 
the
15
company
 
under
 
the
 
procedures
 
outlined
 
in
 
state
 
law.
 
A
 
putative
 
plaintiff
 
class
16
alleges
 
that
 
Verizon
 
installed
 
multi
unit
 
terminal
 
 boxes
 
on
 
their
 
property
 
without
17
 just
 
compensation,
 
and
 
cites
 
procedural
 
due
 
process
 
violations
 
in
 
connection
18
with
 
the
 
installation.
 
The
 
United
 
States
 
District
 
Court
 
for
 
the
 
Eastern
 
District
 
of
19
New
 
York
 
(Irizarry,
 
 J.)
 
dismissed
 
the
 
complaint
 
 because
 
the
 
claims
 
were
 
unripe
20
under
 
the
 
test
 
established
 
 by
 
Williamson
 
Cnty.
 
Reg’l
 
Planning
 
Comm’n
 
v.
21
Hamilton
 
Bank
 
of
 
 Johnson
 
City
 
 ,
 
473
 
U.S.
 
172
 
(1985).
 
That
 
case
 
held
 
that
 
a
 
takings
22
claim
 
under
 
the
 
Fifth
 
Amendment
 
is
 
not
 
ripe
 
for
 
federal
 
review
 
until
 
a
 
final
23
decision
 
is
 
reached
 
 by
 
local
 
authorities
 
and
 
the
 
owner
 
exhausts
 
state
 
remedies.
 
24
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

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