•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This Article analyzes the New York cases of Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp. and Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp. and asserts that the New York Court of Appeals erred in allowing such an expansive definition of "blight" and defining pretextual takings too narrowly. Part I Describes the two cases. Part II explains the concept of blight condemnation and how it was used in the two cases. Part III discusses how the two cases treat the federal constitutional standard for pretextual takings. The Article concludes that eminent domain reform requires a narrower definition of "blight" and constraints on corrupt designation practices.

Share

COinS