supra, 464 F.3d at 375, James Square Assocs. LP v. Mullen, 21 NY3d
233, 247 (2013), Smith, supra, 4 NY3d at 9. The State law in force
informs these investment-backed expectations. Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v.
United States, 133 S.Ct. 511, 522 (2012). The various statutes and regulations
Respondents do not challenge mean that reasonable investment-backed expectations in
multiple dwellings in New York City take into account obligations concerning ongoing
maintenance. An already extensively-regulated sector of commercial life diminishes the
force of an argument that an additional government action frustrates an
investment-backed expectation. Dawson, supra, 197 AD2d at 137.
The Court has made a finding, supra, that Respondents have been failing to
comply with their statutory responsibilities to properly maintain the subject premises
from their purchase of the subject premises in 2012. The Court cannot disentangle
Respondents' regulatory takings defense from Respondents' prior failure to maintain the
subject premises. A party asserting a takings claim bears the burden of proving its case,
in New York beyond a reasonable doubt, De St. Aubin v. Flacke, 68 NY2d 66,
76 (1986), Matter of New Creek
Bluebelt, Phase 4., 122 AD3d 859, 861 (2nd Dept. 2014), Matter of C/S 12th
Ave. LLC v. City of NY, 32 AD3d 1, 9 (1st Dept. 2006), Dawson,
supra, 197 AD2d at 136, and in federal Court by a preponderance of the
evidence. W.J.F. Realty Corp. v. Town of Southampton, 220 F. Supp.2d 140,
149 (E.D.NY [*20]2002). Respondents have not proven,
by either standard, that timely maintenance of the subject premises from back in 2012
— e.g., by pointing or properly maintaining the roof, scupper, and leader —
would have cost more than the value of the subject premises.[FN8]