In the Matter of Joseph F. Gazza, Appellant v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Respondent

Summary

The Court affirmed the dismissal of the takings claim, holding that the denial of a building variance under the Tidal Wetlands Act did not constitute an unconstitutional taking because the petitioner failed to show that the regulation left his property with only a bare residue of value. The Court relied on Lucas and held that the wetlands restrictions were part of the title at the time of purchase. Judge Wesley concurred in the result but argued that a subsequent purchaser should be able to challenge a regulation that results in a taking.