City of New York v. State, No. 52284
| Citation | 371 N.Y.S.2d 189,49 A.D.2d 659 |
| Decision Date | 24 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 52284 |
| Parties | CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. Claim |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Vernon Stuart, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
W. Bernard Richland, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Morris Einhorn, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and GREENBLOTT, KANE, LARKIN and REYNOLDS, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment entered September 17, 1974 upon a decision of the Court of Claims.
It is not disputed that the claimant is entitled to 'just compensation' for the property taken pursuant to section 3 of the General Municipal Law. The State urges, however, that since the improvement in the form of bridge structures is inconsistent with the conceded highest and best use of the land such improvements have no value as a matter of law (Acme Theatres v. State of New York, 26 N.Y.2d 385, 310 N.Y.S.2d 496, 258 N.E.2d 912), or alternatively, if value is to be given to such structures, the value of the land as found by the trial court must be reduced by 90% To reflect the diminution in utility and the decrease of the economic potential of the land available for use as industrial land.
As a general proposition, the State's contentions might be correct but they are not controlling under the unique factual circumstances presented here (Matter of Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. (Hudson Rapid Tubes Corp.), 20 N.Y.2d 457, 285 N.Y.S.2d 24, 231 N.E.2d 734). As the Court of Appeals stated in Matter of Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. (Hudson Rapid Tubes Corp.) (supra, p. 468, 285 N.Y.S.2d p. 30, 231 N.E.2d p. 738), neither it nor the United States Supreme Court has attempted "to prescribe a rigid rule for determining what is 'just compensation' under all circumstances and in all cases. Fair market value has normally been accepted as a just standard. But when the market value has been too difficult to find, or When its application would result in manifest injustice to the owner or public, courts have fashioned and applied other standards.' (United States v. Commodities Corp., 339 U.S. 121, 123, 70 S.Ct. 547, 549, 94 L.Ed. 707 (emphasis added); United States v. Virginia Elec. Co., 365 U.S. 624, 81 S.Ct. 784, 5 L.Ed.2d 838.)' The Court of Appeals then found that by 'any objective standard' an award of scrap value for the Hudson Tubes was unjust because the condemnor should not be permitted to say it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Hempstead (Point Lookout in Vicinity of Sea Spray Drive East), Matter of, 1
...City of New York (New Gen. Hosp.-Cinelli), 280 App.Div. 196, 112 N.Y.S. 101, affd. 305 N.Y. 835, 114 N.E. 38; City of New York v. State of New York, 49 A.D.2d 659, 371 N.Y.S.2d 189). It would be both irrational and unfair for the town to use the beach club structures for the same purposes a......
-
Town of Hempstead, Matter of, 1
......Oct. 17, 1983. Hogan & Hogan, Garden City (Howard T. Hogan, Howard Thomas Hogan, Jr., Garden City, and Julius L. kman, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Farrell, Fritz, ...State of New York, 18 N.Y.2d 897 [276 N.Y.S.2d 633, 223 N.E.2d 41]; Matter of ......
-
Town of Hempstead v. Lee Associates, Inc.
...734; Matter of City of New York (Fifth Ave. Coach Lines), 18 N.Y.2d 212, 273 N.Y.S.2d 52, 219 N.E.2d 410; City of New York v. State of New York, 49 A.D.2d 659, 371 N.Y.S.2d 189) is The town's appraiser was of the opinion that "because the subject property is zoned Residence 'B', permitting ......
-
City of New York v. State, 51119
...385, 310 N.Y.S.2d 496, 258 N.E.2d 912) and generally receive a minus adjustment for demolition costs. Unlike City of New York v. State of New York, 49 A.D.2d 659, 371 N.Y.S.2d 189, where the existence of a bridge created a unique factual circumstance, the application of the 'inconsistent us......