Here's the analysis from The Daily Record over in Rochester.
The city [Buffalo - David Franczyk]argued that no discovery had taken place and the property continues to be used for the care and treatment of mentally handicapped persons.The judge found the city's contention that the property continued to be used to care for mentally retarded persons was sufficient to defeat the instant motion because five original buildings on the J.N. Adam campus continued to be used, until 2004, and all of the people who used the buildings were involved in the care and treatment of mentally retarded patients.
Thus, the court concluded that the 10-year period, if it began at all, did not begin until 2004.
Local Buffalo blogger, Craig Howard picked up on the story a few months ago.
...imagine that the tables were turned. Imagine that through some accident of history the City of New York held title to the Outer Harbor and refused to relinquish it unless and until it was developed in an environmentally-friendly manner -- oh, let's say a big park. The economic desperation of Buffalo would mean nothing, of course, because NYC rules.Can you imagine what David Franczyk (and the environmentalists in Buffalo) would have to say about that?
Free Perrysburg! from Perrysburg Held Hostage - Day 4496
Make sure to include Jim's blog on your daily read...
Artspace Archive • Annals of Neglect • BAVPA • Where is Perrysburg? • Broken Promises...
Writing the City • Woodlawn Row Houses • Tour dé Neglect - 2006 • faq
What's the big deal?
Summary Judgment is a pretty severe imposition and courts can be wary of granting it. If you grant S/J, it's pretty sure it'll be appealed, and judges don't want to risk being overruled. Himelein is no hack.
So, Trathen has to engage in discovery and try the case.
They ought to get to it.
Maybe.
In this case however, as you may recall, the Common Council had previously voted (remember David Franczyk was vacationing on the Italian Riviera) this summer to 7-1 to let the property go. So absent direction from preserver of the status quo, David Franczyk) it's doubtful that the Law Dept would have sought an appeal and moved against a 7-1 CC vote.