City of Albany v. State
| Decision Date | 10 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 37586,37586 |
| Citation | 16 A.D.2d 163,226 N.Y.S.2d 554 |
| Parties | The CITY OF ALBANY, Claimant-Respondent, v. The STATE of New York, Appellant. Claim |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Julius L. Sackman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Paxton Blair, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
John W. Hacker, Corporation Counsel of City of Albany (Harold E. Blodgett, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BERGAN, P. J., and GIBSON, HERLIHY, REYNOLDS and TAYLOR, JJ.
This is an appeal by the State from an appropriation award in favor of the City of Albany in the amount of $909,795.25.
There is no serious dispute as to the factual issues but only as to values.
For about one hundred years prior to the taking, the City of Albany had owned approximately 419.657 acres of undeveloped land located just west of the city line in the Towns of Guilderland and Colonie in Albany County. The land is sandy, rolling terrain with scrub pine, scrub growth being from moderate to dense. Rensselaer Lake, also known as 'Six-Mile Water Works', occupied about 39 acres of the property and prior to 1925 had been the source of water supply for the City of Albany. At the time of the appropriation there was no 'physical or piping connection with the City Water System'. There was testimony introduced that it had some potential value as a supplier of water for industrial purposes.
Prior to the acquisition by the State of 72.669 acres and 7.969 acres for permanent easement, which property was used for the construction of the Northway (Route #87), the property was divided north and south by the main line of the New York Central Railroad tracks. This appropriation has divided the property east to west so that there remain four distinct parcels which have been designated and described by the various witnesses and the court as Parcels 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'.
The court determined the value of the property north of
the railroad tracks before the taking to be ................. $ 894,990.00
and the property south of the railroad tracks .................. 774,938.00
-------------
In sum the court found the total value of all the property
to be ....................................................... $1,669,928.00
After value .................................................... 760,132.75
-------------
Total Damages found by the Court of Claims .................. $ 909,795.25
In arriving at such determination, the court found that the property before the taking was best suited for industrial purposes, except for the frontage on Central Avenue which was commercial; that after the taking Parcel 'A' was best suited for residential purposes, Parcels 'B' and 'C' for industrial purposes, and Parcel 'D' for residential purposes.
The State contends on this appeal that the formula used by the court was erroneous; that the property was best suited before the taking for residential purposes; that the City was paid for land under water; and that the court also considered the use of the water for future purposes.
In our consideration of the decision of the Court of Claims, we will refer to the property as either industrial or residential and consider each parcel in determining the appropriated value of the property.
Prior to the appropriation, the land north and south of the railroad was not divided in an east to west direction by any physical barrier. However, for purposes of classifying the property as residential or industrial, the westerly boundary of the Northway (Route #87) approximates the natural dividing line of the property in terms of its usefulness prior to the appropriation. Accordingly, the court is using the designation of lots 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' in referring to the before value and after value of this entire piece of property.
Parcel 'A'--This parcel consists of 48.858 acres and is located north of the railroad tracks and to the west of Route #87. On the north and west it is bounded by a restricted residential development known as 'Tanglewood'. The property is entirely within the village and town of Colonie and zoned as residential property. The court, in determining that the property before the taking was best suited for industrial purposes, relied upon Matter of Inc. Vil. of Garden City, 9 Misc.2d 693, 167 N.Y.S.2d 166, aff'd 4 A.D.2d 783, 165 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1. t. a. denied 3 N.Y.2d 708, 167 N.Y.S.2d LXXI, 145 N.E.2d 894; Masten et al. v. State, 11 A.D.2d 370, 206 N.Y.S.2d 672, aff'd 9 N.Y.2d 796, 215 N.Y.S.2d 508, 175 N.E.2d 166. The Court of Claims said in its opinion (30 Misc.2d p. 605, 224 N.Y.S.2d p. 1001): 'The developments which already existed in the area had a dominating influence outside their own confines and influenced the market for the land in question, and, upon the evidence, reasonable probability suggests zoning law changes would be made where necessary.'
The factual situation in the cases cited by the court shows that prior to the appropriation, some affirmative act had been initiated tending to the eventual application for rezoning, which is not the fact in this case. So far as Parcel 'A' is concerned, there is no evidence of any suggested zoning changes by the Town or Village of Colonie and the record does not sustain a conclusion that there was a probability or possibility of this section becoming industrial property, either imminently or remotely. The testimony by the claimant's witnesses, who gave no consideration to the zoning restrictions, that the property after the appropriation was best suited for residential purposes is a finding that the record justifies as to the before value as well. The most accessible means of entry to this part of the city property is by Richards Drive, which is part of the residential one-family housing development. Accordingly, we find the record does not sustain as to this parcel a finding of industrial value prior to the taking, and reverse such finding and determine that the property before and after was best suited as zoned for residential use.
to be ................................. $175,031.50
after value ............................. 48,858.00
-----------
and damages of ........................ $126,173.50
We find the before value .. $65,011.70
after value ................ 63,515.40
----------
Damages in the amount of .. $ 1,496.30
Parcel 'B' is north of the railroad tracks, east of Route #87, bounded on the east by what is known as Industrial Park and other lands and on the north by Central Avenue. Prior to the appropriation, 'A' and 'B' consisted of all of the property north of the railroad tracks and was, of course, not divided by the new highway. Witnesses for both parties testified that the frontage on Central Avenue consisted of 2,233.58 feet and the value of $150,00 per foot was adopted by the court and is not disputed.
This amounts to .................................. $335,037.00 1
The after value of 364.58 2 feet (not appropriated) at
the same price is ....................................... 54,687.00
-------------
Damages ................................................. $280,350.00
Denotes mathematical correction
Denotes correction in the front footage on Central Avenue
While this property is zoned residential, we determine that there was a fair basis for the application by the court of the principal of Masten et al. v. State, 11 A.D.2d 370, 206 N.Y.S.2d 672, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 796, 215 N.Y.S.2d 508, 175 N.E.2d 166 supra. Contiguous to the property on the east and north thereof was an industrial and commercial development of sufficient size and consequence to justify the determination of the court that a zoning change was 'imminent'.
As to "B", the Court of Claims found
the value before (109.991 acres X $3500) ............... $384,968.50
after (71.74 acres X $3500.) ............................ 249,111.00
-----------
Damages ................................................ $135,857.50
Damages to Central Avenue frontage ...................... 238,090.00
-----------
Total Damages to Parcel "B" ............................ $373,947.50
We find the before value .................. $384,968.50
after (73.117 acres X $3500.) .............. 255,909.50
-----------
Damages ................................... $129,059.00
Damages to Central Avenue frontage ......... 280,350.00
-----------
Total Damages to Parcel "B" ............... $409,409.00
We determine the total damages to the property north of the railroad tracks to be $410,905.30.
Parcel 'C'--This parcel is south of the railroad tracks and east of Route #87, bounded on the south by the Washington Avenue Extension and on the east by Fuller Road. Here against we accept the finding of the Court of Claims that the property before and after was best suited for industrial purposes albeit zoned residential. There is no serious dispute in the record that Fuller Road has and continues to be developed for commercial and industrial purposes, and the prior statement we made as to the imminence of probable zoning change applies to the present parcel. the Court of Claims found a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruckner Expressway, Borough of Bronx, City of New York, In re
...v. State of New York, 11 A.D.2d 370, 206 N.Y.S.2d 672, aff'd 9 N.Y.2d 796, 215 N.Y.S.2d 508, 175 N.E.2d 166; City of Albany v. State of New York, 16 A.D.2d 163, 226 N.Y.S.2d 554; Albany Country Club v. State of New York, 19 A.D.2d 199, 241 N.Y.S.2d 604, aff'd 13 N.Y.2d 1085, 246 N.Y.S.2d 40......
-
Brubaker v. State, 34735
...v. State of New York, 11 A.D.2d 370, 206 N.Y.S.2d 672, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 796, 215 N.Y.S.2d 508, 175 N.E.2d 166; City of Albany v. State of New York, 16 A.D.2d 163, 226 N.Y.S.2d 554). The Court on such a record as this could consider the economic and industrial growth of the area; the fact the ......
-
Mastroieni v. State
...235 N.Y.S.2d 684, mod. 19 A.D.2d 199, 241 N.Y.S.2d 604, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 1085, 246 N.Y.S.2d 407, 196 N.E.2d 62; City of Albany v. State of New York, 16 A.D.2d 163, 226 N.Y.S.2d 554). Even the State's appraiser was of the opinion that except for the factor of zoning, the highest and best use ......
-
Metzner v. State
...Second 199, (241 N.Y.S.2d 604,) Affd. 13 New York, Second 1085 (, 246 N.Y.S.2d 407, 196 N.E.2d 62)); (City of Albany v. State of New York, 16 AD, Second 1--63 (163, 226 N.Y.S.2d 554)) and (Joseph Mastroiene et al. v. State of New York, (25 A.D.2d 463, 266 N.Y.S.2d 178) Claim No. 40009 and a......