Court: Property owner's rights violated in condemnation case

A U.S. District Court of Appeals yesterday ruled in favor of a businessman who had bought and renovated four buildings in Port Chester, only to lose them through condemnation to further a downtown redevelopment effort. The 2nd Circuit Court in Manhattan unanimously ruled that Bill Brody's right to due process was violated because the state's eminent domain law provided for insufficient notice that Port Chester could take his property through eminent domain. Brody's buildings were torn down, and a portion of The Waterfront at Port Chester, a retail and entertainment complex, was built on the site. The 5-year-old Brody case received nationwide attention, coming at a time when municipal governments increasingly were turning to eminent domain to encourage private development projects, especially in older commercial districts. The trend shows little sign of abating. The case now goes back to the U.S. District Court in Manhattan to determine whether Brody is to be awarded damages and, if so, how much. The court agreed with Brody's key contention, that a small legal advertisement in a newspaper was insufficient notice of the eminent domain process, said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, an Arlington, Va., nonprofit group, which represented Brody at no charge. "New York's notice procedure was utterly inadequate," Berliner said yesterday. "The court confirmed that people do indeed have the right to challenge whether the government can take their property." Brody did not return a call to his office yesterday. Largely as a result of Brody's legal battle, New York state last year changed its eminent domain law to require that governments notify property owners of eminent domain plans by certified mail or personal delivery. The notice is considered crucial because property owners have only 30 days to challenge the eminent domain plan....