N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Eminent Domain Procedure / ARTICLE Determination of the Need and Location of a Public Project Prior to Acquisition
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207 (2026)

Judicial review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 207. Judicial review. (A) Any person or persons jointly or
severally, aggrieved by the condemnor's determination and findings made
pursuant to section two hundred four of this article, may seek judicial
review thereof by the appellate division of the supreme court, in the
judicial department embracing the county wherein the proposed facility
is located by the filing of a petition in such court within thirty days
after the condemnor's completion of its publication of its determination
and findings pursuant to section two hundred four herein. Such petition
shall be accompanied by proof of service of a demand on the condemnor to
file with said court a copy of a written transcript of the record of the
proceeding before it, and a copy of its determination and findings. Upon
receipt of such petition and demand, the condemnor shall forthwith
deliver to the court a copy of the record and a copy of its
determination and findings. The proceeding shall be heard on the record
without requirement of reproduction. If such proposed public improvement
is located in more than one judicial department such proceeding may be
brought in any one, but only one of such departments and all such
proceedings with relation to any single public project shall be
consolidated with that first filed.
  (B) The jurisdiction of the appellate division of the supreme court
shall be exclusive and its judgment and order shall be final subject to
review by the court of appeals in the same manner and form and with the
same effect as provided for appeals in a special proceeding. All such
proceedings shall be heard and determined by the appellate division of
the supreme court, and by the court of appeals, as expeditiously as
possible and with lawful preference over other matters.
  (C) The court shall either confirm or reject the condemnor's
determination and findings. The scope of review shall be limited to
whether:
  (1) the proceeding was in conformity with the federal and state
constitutions,
  (2) the proposed acquisition is within the condemnor's statutory
jurisdiction or authority,
  (3) the condemnor's determination and findings were made in accordance
with procedures set forth in this article and with article eight of the
environmental conservation law, and
  (4) a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed
acquisition.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 921 N.E.2d 164 (NY 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 921 N.E.2d 164 (NY 2009). · cites it 36× “And even if CPLR 205 (a) applied, it would not help petitioners because the Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207 (C) (1) claim in their federal lawsuit was dismissed on the merits.”
C/S 12th Avenue LLC v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 3× “In these five original consolidated proceedings commenced pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207, petitioners ask this Court to reject, annul and set aside the Determination and Findings of respondents City of New York and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)…”
West 41st Street Realty LLC v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 298 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · cites it 3× “This original proceeding, brought pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207, involves the well-publicized and previously litigated renovation of Times Square (see, e.”
Matter of Court St. Dev. Proj., LLC v. Utica Urban Renewal Agency, 2020 NY Slip Op 06597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “Proceeding pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department) to annul the determination of respondent to condemn certain real property.”
Matter of Bowers Dev., LLC v. Oneida Cnty. Indus. Dev. Agency, 2022 NY Slip Op 07327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). “Proceeding pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department) to annul the determination of respondent Oneida County Industrial Development Agency to condemn certain real property.”
ACE Sec. Corp. v. DB Structured Prods., Inc., 52 Misc. 3d 343 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016). “Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207 (A) required filing of a proceeding challenging an EDPL condemnation determination within 30 days following the determination.”
In re Fisher, 287 A.D.2d 262 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · cites it 2× “ings adopted by respondent New York State Urban Development Corporation on January 31, 2001, which found, inter alia, that there is a public use, benefit or purpose to support condemna *263 tion of 45 Wall Street in New York County in conjunction with respondent’s New York Stock…”
Westchester Creek Corp. v. New York City Sch. Constr. Auth., 286 A.D.2d 154 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Westchester Creek Corporation brings this petition pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207, seeking to annul the determination by respondent School Construction Authority.”
Uptown Holdings, LLC v. City of New York, 77 A.D.3d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “Petition, pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207, to annul the determination of respondent City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), issued June 12, 2009, which authorized the condemnation of petitioners’ properties, denied, the…”
In re New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 193 Misc. 2d 290 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002). “on and findings of respondent New York State Urban Development Corporation, issued on or about November 30, 2001, which directed that respondent Empire State Development Corporation exercise its power of condemnation in order to acquire, as necessary, real property designated…”
Matter of Frank J. Ludovico Sculpture Trail Corp. v. Town of Seneca Falls, 2019 NY Slip Op 4621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). “Proceeding pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department) to annul a determination of respondent.”
Matter of United Ref. Co. of Pa. v. Town of Amherst, 2019 NY Slip Op 5270 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). “Proceeding pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 207 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department) to annul a determination of respondent.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.