Auburn Urban Renewal Agency v. Samuel Schwartz Sons, Inc.

Decision Date26 April 1977
Parties, 363 N.E.2d 1384 AUBURN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, Respondent, v. SAMUEL SCHWARTZ SONS, INC., Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Order affirmed, with costs, on the memorandum at the Appellate Division (53 A.D.2d 1051, 385 N.Y.S.2d 892).

All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v. Patchen Post, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 13, 1978
    ...whose findings are deemed entitled to the benefit of "every favorable intendment" Ab initio (Auburn Renewal Agency v. Schwartz Sons, 41 N.Y.2d 1026, 395 N.Y.S.2d 639, 363 N.E.2d 1384, affg. 53 A.D.2d 1051, 35 N.Y.S.2d 892; Matter of Huie (Fletcher City of New York), 2 N.Y.2d 168, 157 N.Y.S.......
  • Saratoga County Sewer Dist. No. 1 v. Gordon
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 24, 1984
    ...fact or conclusions of law (see Auburn Urban Renewal Agency v. Schwartz Sons, 53 A.D.2d 1051, 385 N.Y.S.2d 892, affd. 41 N.Y.2d 1026, 395 N.Y.S.2d 639, 363 N.E.2d 1384). Neither was it error to receive evidence of comparable sales outside Saratoga County but only 8 to 10 miles from subject ......
  • Poughkeepsie Urban Renewal Agency v. Dutchess Glass Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 30, 1980
    ...theory of valuation (cf. Auburn Urban Renewal Agency v. Schwartz Sons, 53 A.D.2d 1051, 385 N.Y.S.2d 892, affd. 41 N.Y.2d 1026, 395 N.Y.S.2d 639, 363 N.E.2d 1384; see Iroquois Gas Corp. v. Kasprzyk, 52 A.D.2d 725, 381 N.Y.S.2d ...
  • Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. Terrace Broadway Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 10, 1980
    ...157 N.Y.S.2d 957, 139 N.E.2d 140; Auburn Urban Renewal Agency v. Schwartz Sons, 53 A.D.2d 1051, 385 N.Y.S.2d 892, affd. 41 N.Y.2d 1026, 395 N.Y.S.2d 639, 363 N.E.2d 1384). The court erred, therefore, in denying the cross-motion to confirm the Order unanimously reversed with costs and cross-......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT