Bopp v. State, 37655
| Decision Date | 13 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 37655,37655 |
| Citation | 19 N.Y.2d 368,227 N.E.2d 37,280 N.Y.S.2d 135 |
| Parties | , 227 N.E.2d 37 John F. BOPP et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. Claim |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Louis A. Di Donna, Kingston, for appellants.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Julius L. Sackman and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
John F. and Mary Louise Bopp were the owners and operators of a motel-lodge and restaurant located in the Catskill Mountain resort area on State Route 28. The property was directly opposite to the road which led off Route 28 to the Belleayre recreational area. This one recreational area alone attracted many thousands of persons to its center and, while that facility was primarily a Winter facility, it was sometimes attended by more persons during its Summer operation than its Winter ski operation.
For obvious reasons, then, the property's location on State Route 28 was, to use the claimants' word, 'strategic'.
In September of 1959, the State of New York embarked upon a reconstruction of State Route 28 and, in furtherance of this purpose, appropriated a very small portion of the claimants' property, 0.044 of an acre. In addition, as part of the reconstruction of Route 28 (hereinafter referred to as Old Route 28) upon which the claimants' land was located, it was severed and closed at points some distance to the east and west of the claimants' property.
Had the State stopped at this point, the claimants would have been left without access to the State highway. The State, however, constructed a so-called 'G-spur connection' which connected to a portion of the old Route 28 and the new Route 28 to the west of the claimants' property.
The 'G-spur' was a macadam road, some 20 feet wide--the same width as the old Route 28. The new Route 28 was, however, no longer on the same grade as the claimants' property which was barely visible to those proceeding along the new route. In addition, the new access road required a sharp turn off the new Route 28. The claimants' property was some 700 to 800 feet from that turnoff.
After the reconstruction of Route 28 and the construction of the 'G-spur', the claimants were unable to continue the operation of the motellodge and restaurant at a profit and its use was changed to a Summer residence except during the ski season when it accommodates some persons from nearby lodges.
The claimants commenced an action in the Court of Claims seeking as compensation the decrease in the value of the premises which resulted from the taking of a small piece of their property and the reconstruction of the highway.
The Court of Claims awarded the claimants $15,000 as compensation for damages which the court found they had incurred. In so doing, the court indicated that it was awarding damages resulting from the inadequacy of the access road. The court concluded that
The Appellate Division unanimously modified the judgment in the following memorandum: The cases cited by the Appellate Division are representative of the clearly established law in this State that damages resulting from circuity of access to the claimants' property as well as damages incurred because traffic no longer passes the claimants' property are not compensable.
The Appellate Division's reversal upon the law And the facts, therefore, indicates that it found that the damage suffered by the claimants in excess of the value of the small piece of property actually appropriated was due to the fact that the claimants' property was no longer on the heavily traveled State highway and was now located on an access road not visible to any person traveling on the highway.
After reviewing the record and studying the exhibits, we have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TIROLERLAND v. LAKE PLACID 1980 OLYMPIC GAMES, 83-CV-102.
...simply did not amount to a taking. See Stipe v. United States, 337 F.2d 818, 821 (10th Cir.1964); Bopp v. New York, 19 N.Y.2d 368, 372-73, 280 N.Y.S.2d 135, 139, 227 N.E.2d 37, 39 (1967). Plaintiffs' taking claim with respect to the alleged losses suffered by their restaurant is similarly w......
-
State Roads Com'n of the State Highway Admin. v. Brannon
...monetary compensation if we are to have the advantages of modern means of transportation ( see e.g., Bopp v. State of New York, 19 N.Y.2d 368, 373, 280 N.Y.S.2d 135, 139, 227 N.E.2d 37, 40). In the instant case and cases of like kind, however, we believe that the practical difficulties atte......
-
Dumala v. State
...688, 256 N.Y.S.2d 134, 204 N.E.2d 333 (1965), cert. den'd 382 U.S. 826, 86 S.Ct. 60, 15 L.Ed.2d 71 (1965), Bopp v. State, 19 N.Y.2d 368, 280 N.Y.S.2d 135, 227 N.E.2d 37 (1967), Tucci v. State, 28 A.D.2d 774, 280 N.Y.S.2d 789 (3rd Dept., 1967), aff'd 29 N.Y.2d 836, 327 N.Y.S.2d 851, 277 N.E.......
-
Malone v. Com.
...every nice question of the standards of conduct to (a) jury."10 There was a similar highway relocation in Bopp v. State, 19 N.Y.2d 368, 280 N.Y.S.2d 135, 227 N.E.2d 37 (1967), and the plaintiff's motel-lodge and restaurant became barely visible from the new highway and no longer profitable.......