Register | Lost your password?

CaseBriefs

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 22 Ill.439 U.S. 883, 99 S. Ct. 226, 58 L. Ed. 2d 198 (1978)

Brief Fact Summary. Penn Central (Appellant) owned the Grand Central Terminal, which was designated by application of New York’s Landmarks Preservation Law to be a landmark. Thereafter, the Appellant entered into a renewable 50-year lease with UGP Properties, Ltd., a United Kingdom company, under which the UGP agreed to construct a multistory office building on top of the terminal. The plans for the new office building were submitted to the Commission for approval, which was denied.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. In deciding whether a particular government action has effected a taking, this Court focuses both on the character of the action and the nature and extent of the interference with rights in the parcel as a whole.


Facts. Appellant owned the Grand Central Terminal, which was designated by application of New York’s Landmarks Preservation Law to be a landmark. Thereafter, the Appellant entered into a renewable 50-year lease with UGP Properties, Ltd., a United Kingdom company, under which the UGP agreed to construct a multistory office building on top of the terminal. The plans for the new office building were submitted to the Commission for approval, which was denied. The plans were in conformity with existing zoning regulation, but the Commission of Landmarks Preservation nonetheless denied the applications for certificates of “no external effect” and for “appropriateness.” The Appellants did not pursue any administrative remedies because none were available. The Appellants did not decide to submit other plans to the Commission, either. Instead, the Appellants filed suit in state court seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief barring the City from using the Landmarks Law to impede the c
onstruction of any structure that might otherwise be lawfully constructed, and damaged for the temporary “taking” that occurred between the designation date (August 2, 1967) and the date when the restrictions arising under the Landmarks Law would be lifted. The trial court granted injunctive and declaratory relief, but severed the question of damages for a “temporary taking.” The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, and summarily rejected any claim that the Landmarks Commission had taken any property without just compensation because the law had not transferred control of the property to the city, but only limited the Appellants’ use. The Appellants appealed.

Issue. Has a taking occurred?

Content Type: Brief


Comments are closed.