Conklin v. State
| Citation | 38 N.Y.2d 726,381 N.Y.S.2d 37 |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 51655,51655 |
| Parties | , 343 N.E.2d 755 Norbert B. CONKLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. Claim |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Joseph Lite, P.C., West Islip, for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Joseph F. Gibbons and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Generally, a lessee is entitled to recover the value of fixtures placed by him on the condemned property, when he is entitled to remove them at the expiration of the lease (Marraro v. State of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 285, 239 N.Y.S.2d 105, 189 N.E.2d 606). On the record before us, we cannot conclude that claimant has met his burden of establishing his ownership of the fixtures at the date of the appropriation and the liability of the State to him. The record reveals that the fixtures were not on the condemned property at the time of the appropriation and, hence, there is no proof of a taking by the State.
The scope of our review here is limited to the determination that there is evidence in the record supporting the finding by the Appellate Division that claimant failed to establish his ownership of the property. (See Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals (rev. ed.), § 108, p. 452.) Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, without costs.
Order, 46 A.D.2d 936, 361 N.Y.S.2d 743 affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartzberg v. State
...... Moreover, the failure of the notice of intention to indicate the exact date of the December, 1981 meeting is not fatal. (See, generally,Sheinbaum v. State of New York, 101 Misc.2d 250, 252, 420 N.Y.S.2d 855; Williams v. State of New York, 77 Misc.2d 396, 353 N.Y.S.2d 691; see, also,Conklin v. State of New York, 46 A.D.2d 936, 361 N.Y.S.2d 743, affd. 38 N.Y.2d 726, 381 N.Y.S.2d 37, 343 N.E.2d 755.) The only potential prejudice to the State from this failure would be its inability to determine from the face of the notice whether it was filed within ninety days of the meeting. ......
-
Mazur Bros., Inc. v. State
...that Items 117 and 118 were installed as trade fixtures for which it was entitled to compensation ( see Conklin v. State of New York, 38 N.Y.2d 726, 381 N.Y.S.2d 37, 343 N.E.2d 755;cf. Matter of Village of Port Chester, 42 A.D.3d at 467, 839 N.Y.S.2d 218). Accordingly, we reduce the award w......
-
Mobil Health, Inc. v. State
......16, 1990, Lyons, J.). Moreover, we note that no mention of a defect under section 11 was asserted in the answer. Case law has held this type of defect, if it be one at all, not to be one of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore waivable. (Conklin v. State of New York, 46 A.D.2d 936, 361 N.Y.S.2d 743, affd. 38 N.Y.2d 726, 381 N.Y.S.2d 37, 343 N.E.2d 755.) This is particularly true where, as here, no prejudice can arise because the State has already been provided with all the dates and particulars when it was served with the accounts ......