Park Avenue Tower Associates and 40 Eastco v. The City of New York

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• collecting cases rejecting takings claims under the Penn Central framework despite diminutions in value of 75 to 90 percent
• collecting cases rejecting takings claims where property value declined by 75% to 90%
• collecting cases rejecting taking claims where property value diminished from 75 to 90%
• collecting cases rejecting taking claims where property value diminished from 75 to 90%
• collecting cases rejecting taking claims where property value diminished from 75 to 90%
• “The crucial inquiry . . . is not whether the regulation permits plaintiffs to use the property in a ‘profitable’ manner, but whether the property use allowed by the regulation is sufficiently desirable to permit property owners to ‘sell the property to someone for that use.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).