Target was in a unique position.
As one of only two anchor tenants left at the former Irondequoit Mall — the other being a nursing school — the retail giant was supposed to have a major say over any changes to the shopping center.
That was to include any new tenants that strayed from traditional retail uses. And any new construction, changes in parking, even signage.
That was the agreement. Until the county tried to cancel it.
Specifically, it was the County of Monroe Industrial Development Agency, or COMIDA, that did so, at the behest of mall owner Angelo Ingrassia. COMIDA used eminent domain, often referred to as condemnation, to nullify the agreement. Those proceedings are not yet final, as Target filed a late challenge, and now is asking the regional appellate court to undo the condemnation and restore the agreement.
Arguments are scheduled for Thursday.
The dispute highlights a challenge seen nationwide, as shopping malls empty and developers seek alternatives, but legacy department stores still hold sway.
The county sees the restrictions as obsolete, serving only to hinder redevelopment of “a vacant void that includes the largest of the mall’s anchor spaces,” court records show. COMIDA is seeking to dismiss the case, arguing Target had the opportunity to raise objections at the condemnation hearing a year ago, and did not.
Target claims COMIDA overstepped.
"The power of eminent domain cannot be exercised in anticipation of a project that does not yet exist,” Target argued in court filings, asserting that the condemnation was improper and done in bad faith. “This is a case of premature exercise of eminent domain power untethered to any present need or public purpose.”
A county spokesperson declined comment, citing the ongoing litigation. Ingrassia and lawyers for Target and the owner of the nursing school property did not immediately respond to messages.
The issue here is what’s known as a reciprocal easement agreement, or REA, which dates to the beginning of what originally was known as Irondequoit Mall.
The mall opened in 1990, with 110 stores, several out parcels and a list of anchors that included Sears, J.C. Penney, Sibley’s and McCurdy’s. By 2001, however, more than a quarter of the shopping center was empty.
It sold in 2005, and was rebranded as The Medley Centre. But efforts to rejuvenate the property stalled, and Ingrassia bought the majority of mall in 2016, through his company 1733 Ridge RD LLC. He nad partners Frank Perticone and Robert Morgan rebranded it Skyview on the Ridge. Redevelopment has again been slow, and the REA is being held out as a reason — prompting the condemnation proceeding.
Most of the nation’s malls have, or had, these deals, a standard practice of a bygone era when there was a rush to secure major department stores for these sprawling shopping centers. Now, though, as developers look to replace shops with gyms, medical services or housing, they are running up against REAs that can block certain uses, prohibit additional outside signage or thwart changes that would reroute foot traffic.
For anchor stores, the agreements serve as protection and a bargaining chip that, in some cases, have netted them multi-million-dollar settlements.
The county sent Target notice of the condemnation hearing via certified mail and Federal Express, filing records in court that show both were delivered on April 29, 2025, to company headquarters in Minneapolis. The hearing was two weeks later. Target representatives did not attend, and company officials now claim that they were not aware it was happening. Target filed suit last September.
In the court filings, the company noted that the REA "expressly prohibits residential use.” But in 2022, mall officials celebrated the opening of a 157-unit senior housing apartment complex in the former Sears department store and a new four-story building. The state, county and town of Irondequoit helped fund what’s known as Skyview Park Apartments.
“COMIDA and its developer seek to use this condemnation proceeding to extinguish the very property rights that render that development unlawful,” Target argued.
It’s unclear what discussions were had with Target about the apartments. This time around, though, the company says there have been none.
“There is no evidence that the developer attempted to negotiate with Target or that Target refused to negotiate,” the company wrote in court filings, “no indication that COMIDA inquired whether such efforts had occurred, and no attempt by COMIDA to contact Target directly before invoking the extraordinary power of eminent domain.”
