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
Petition to U.S. Supreme Court in Columbia University eminent domain case

Petition to U.S. Supreme Court in Columbia University eminent domain case

Ratings: (0)|Views: 990|Likes:
Published by AYReport

More info:

Published by: AYReport on Sep 26, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

09/26/2010

pdf

text

original

 
No. 10-I
N
 
THE
Supreme Court of the United States
 
_______________________________
O
N
P
ETITION
 
FOR
 
A
W
RIT
 
OF
C
ERTIORARI
 
TO
 
THE
C
OURT
 
OF
PPEALS
 
OF
N
EW 
Y
ORK
232387
A
(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
TUCK-IT-AWAY, INC., et al.,
 Petitioners,v.
NEW YORK STATE URBANDEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONd/b/a EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,
 Respondent.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
N
ORMAN
S
IEGEL
Counsel of Record
260 Madison Avenue,18th Fl.New York, NY 10016(212) 532-7586siegelnorman@aol.com
(Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page)
S
TEVEN
J. H
 YMAN
 A 
IMEE
E. S
 AGINAW 
M
CLAUGHLIN
& S
TERN
, LLP260 Madison Avenue,18th Fl.New York, NY 10016(212) 448-1100
 
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
This Petition should be granted to address twourgent questions arising from the Court of Appeals of New York’s dismissal of Petitioners’ challenge to thelegitimacy of the governmental takings at issue in thiscase:1.Whether it was error for the Court of Appeals of New York to disregard the principles enunciated in
 Kelov. City of New London
, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) insanctioning the use of eminent domain for the benefitof a private developer, when the circumstancespresented by the instant case exemplify the very badfaith, pretext, and favoritism that this Court warnedcould result if 
 Kelo
’s safeguards were ignored?2.Whether the Due Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of theUnited States imposes any minimum proceduralstandards, in accordance with the requirement of fundamental fairness, to preserve a property owner’smeaningful opportunity to be heard within the contextof an eminent domain taking?
 
ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
Petitioners Tuck-It-Away, Inc.,
et al.
consist of Tuck-It-Away, Inc., Tuck-It-Away Bridgeport, Tuck-It-Awayat 133
rd
Street, Inc. and Tuck-It-Away Associates, L.P.(collectively, “Tuck-It-Away”) and Parminder Kaur, Amanjit Kaur and P.G. Singh Enterprises, LLC(collectively, the “Kaurs”).Respondent is the New York State UrbanDevelopment Corporation d/b/a the Empire StateDevelopment Corporation (“ESDC”).The petitions of Tuck-It-Away and the Kaurs werenever consolidated, but were heard and disposed of together in a single decision and order at both the courtof original instance, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and at the Court of Appeals of New  York.

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)//-->