We have no reason to question that determination. The Court of Appeals determined that 828 serves the legitimate public purpose of “rapid development of and maximum penetration by a means of communication which has important educational and community aspects,” and thus is within the State’s police power. Because we conclude that such a physical occupation of property is a taking, we reverse. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that this appropriation does not amount to a taking. In this case, the cable installation occupied portions of appellant’s roof and the side of her building. New York law provides that a landlord must permit a cable television company to install its cable facilities upon his property. This case presents the question whether a minor but permanent physical occupation of an owner’s property authorized by government constitutes a “taking” of property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. JUSTICE MARSHALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. Loretto lost in the state courts and requested Supreme Court review. Loretto considered the state law requiring her to allow cable companies to install and maintain their equipment in her building a “taking” that under the Constitution required compensation. The equipment provided service to units in the building (“noncrossover” connections) as well as to neighboring buildings (“crossover” connections). When she took possession she discovered that the Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation had installed cable equipment in the building. Jean Loretto purchased a five-story apartment building in New York City. Under state regulations an apartment building owner was granted a one-time only payment of $1 when a cable company installed its equipment. The motion is granted to the extent of declaring that the statute represents a reasonable and, therefore, justifiable exercise of the police power of the State.Burger, O?Connor, Powell, Rehnquist, StevensĮffective January 1, 1973, Section 828 of the New York Executive Law provided that landlords must allow cable television (CATV) providers the right to install and maintain cable equipment in their apartment buildings. It is further urged that the proper measure of compensation is the 5% Of Teleprompter's gross revenues that was customarily paid to landlords before the adoption of the statute. Plaintiff argues that the virtually free installation of cable TV components on private property authorized by the statute amounts to an uncompensated trespass and condemnation of property that constitute a "taking" without due process. (The Commission has, to date, made only nominal awards of $1.00 and has effectively ruled that it will continue to make such awards absent a showing by a landlord that greater damages are attributable to the installation of cable TV components.) Also at issue is whether Executive Law, section 828(1)(b) purports to authorize Teleprompter to place equipment on the premises of one landlord to service the tenants of another building farther removed from the source of transmission. The challenged statute, essentially, bars landlords from interfering with the installation of cable television facilities upon their property and limits payment for such use of the property to the amount awarded by the Commission on cable television. Defendant City of New York and the remaining defendants (Teleprompter) move by separate motions (Nos. 94) in this class action instituted by plaintiff Jean Loretto, formerly the owner of residential premises located at 303 West 105 th Street (ownership was recently transferred to a corporation wholly owned by plaintiff) seeks to test the constitutionality of section 828 of the Executive Law, which became effective on January 1, 1973. Motions # 89, 90, 91 and 94 on the calendar of Novemare consolidated for disposition. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel, City of New York, New York City, for defendant City of New York. Shea, Gould, Climenko & Casey, New York City, for defendants Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part I. 415 N.Y.S.2d 180 98 Misc.2d 944 Jean LORETTO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |