Got this email this morning from Develop Don’t Destroy:

Before we go any further we’ll state it simply: There was no decision today on the federal legal challenge to New York State’s and Forest City Ratner’s abuse of eminent domain. Any news reports saying so or implying otherwise are misleading.

There was much confusion (read: underinformed mistakes made) this morning regarding some legal news related to “Atlantic Yards.” Each news outlet covering the story got a little piece of it wrong, but the Daily Intelligencer blog of New York Magazine got the story lavishly wrong (they have since corrected their errors and NoLandGrab has reported on the Intelligencer’s mistakes).

To cut to the chase: There is NO news on the federal eminent domain lawsuit—Goldstein v. Pataki—filed by 13 “Atlantic Yards” footprint property owners and tenants. That lawsuit alleges that New York State’s use of eminent domain for the project is a violation of the United States Constitution. If the plaintiffs win that suit, “Atlantic Yards” as proposed cannot be built as their properites are located where the developer wants to build the project, including the arena. On March 30th in front of New York Eastern District Justice Nicholas Garaufis there was a three-hour oral argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Today marks seven weeks since that hearing and both sides await Judge Garaufis’ decision. For an in-depth report on the substance of the March 30th hearing, go to the coverage from Atlantic Yards Report.

What New York’s press corps was trying to report today was that a Manhattan State Supreme Court case—Anderson v. ESDC—was dismissed yesterday by presiding Judge Tolub. That case involved 13 rent-stabilized tenants who reside in the proposed “Atlantic Yards” project site. They argued that the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) does not have the legal authority to terminate rent-stabilized leases, that that authority is held by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). Judge Tolub did not dismiss the case on the merits, but instead ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims belong in the Appellate Division where they now intend to go.

While we fully support these tenants’ defense of their rights, this case has no relationship to or bearing on the federal suit–Goldstein v. Pataki–or the state lawsuit challenging the “Atlantic Yards” Environmental Impact Statement–DDDB et. al. v. ESDC. et. al. Anderson v. ESDC has entirely different litigants and attorneys, is not funded at all by the DDDB Legal Fund and was not organized by DDDB.