Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following closely. (We won’t be commenting much, because it is one of ours.)

In The Coalition for Fairness in Soho and Noho, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 112 (Jan. 13, 2026), the New York Court of Appeals (dun-dun) held that

New York City wants to save space so artists can live there. If an owner wants to covert a SoHo or NoHo artist live/work space into plain old residential (because artists ain’t living in SoHo or NoHo), she better get ready to pay to the City’s Arts Fund a non-refundable fee of $100 per square foot as a precondition of even filing a building permit. When owners challenged this fee as unconstitutional under Nollan/Dolan/Koontz/Sheetz, the trial division said no.

But the Appellate Division held otherwise, concluding that the imposition of the

Continue Reading NY Court Of Appeals Tees Up A Certworthy Exactions Case

Heads up on a new article of interest to those of us who deal with exactions and Nollan/Dolan: Matthew Baker, Much Ado About Nollan/Dolan: The Comparative Nature of the Legislative Adjudication Distinctions in Exactions, 42 Urban Lawyer 171 (2010). Here’s a summary: 

Much has been made, by both commentators and courts, of the distinction between legislative and adjudicative land use exactions used to determine whether an exaction must meet the “essential nexus” requirement of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and the “rough proportionality” test of Dolan v. City of Tigard. But practical application of the distinction has been anything but simple, only adding to the “mess” and “muddle” of Takings Clause jurisprudence. While exactions jurisprudence is admittedly messy, the apparent analytical incoherence results primarily from the confused and inconsistent application of the Nollan/Dolan test by lower courts, which would no doubt prefer

Continue Reading New Article On Legislative-Adjudicative Distinction In Nollan/Dolan Analysis