City of New York, Matter of
| Decision Date | 09 May 1983 |
| Citation | 94 A.D.2d 724,462 N.Y.S.2d 260 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the CITY OF NEW YORK. Jomar Real Estate Corp., Appellant; The City of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Samuel Goldstein & Sons, New York City (Samuel Goldstein and M. Robert Goldstein, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City (Leonard Olarsch and Joseph A. Vogel, Asst. Corp. Counsels, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before TITONE, J.P., and THOMPSON, RUBIN and BOYERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a condemnation proceeding, the claimant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the eighth separate and partial final decree of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 18, 1981, as awarded it only $562,500 for its land taken in this matter, after a nonjury trial.
Decree modified, on the law and the facts, so as to (1) increase the amount awarded in the second decretal paragraph thereof from $946,191 to $2,453,691, and (2) increase the amount set forth in the abstract of awards, annexed to the decree appealed from and referred to in the second decretal paragraph, for the final award of Jomar Real Estate Corp. from $562,500 to $2,070,000. As so modified, decree affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to claimant.
The Trial Court's holding that the highest and best use of the subject premises was for industrial uses is against the weight of the evidence presented at trial. The claimant has established upon its proof that the highest and best use thereof is for a neighborhood shopping center, a commercial use. Commencing at a time several years prior to vesting date, the claimant began to improve its property towards the goal of constructing a neighborhood shopping center thereupon. The land was graded and levelled, it was cleared of an existing building and an abutting street was paved; sewers were installed with a number of connections sufficient to service the proposed shopping center. Plans for the shopping center were drawn, but were refused filing and approval by reason of the impending condemnation. Though no formal feasibility study was done, claimant's expert testified to his familiarity with the area in general, to his experience with appraising and valuing commercial properties, including shopping centers, and, based upon his experience, stated that he believed the subject property would well support a local shopping center. Indeed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northville Industries Corp. v. Board of Assessors of Town of Riverhead
...Holding Corp. v. Finance Administrator of City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 700, 701, 481 N.Y.S.2d 139; Matter of City of New York [Jormar Real Estate Corp.], 94 A.D.2d 724, 462 N.Y.S.2d 260, affd. 61 N.Y.2d 843, 473 N.Y.S.2d 963, 462 N.E.2d The record establishes that during the tax years under......
-
730 Equity Corp. v. N.Y. State Urban Dev. Corp.
...654, 655, 1 N.Y.S.3d 246 ; Gyrodyne Co. of Am., Inc. v. State of New York, 89 A.D.3d 988, 996, 933 N.Y.S.2d 375 ; Matter of City of New York, 94 A.D.2d 724, 462 N.Y.S.2d 260, affd Matter of City of New York [Jomar Real Estate Corp. ], 61 N.Y.2d 843, 473 N.Y.S.2d 963, 462 N.E.2d 140 ). Altho......
-
Cnty. of Orange v. Monroe Bakertown Rd. Realty, Inc.
...1065, 388 N.Y.S.2d 768 ; see Gyrodyne Co. of Am., Inc. v. State of New York, 89 A.D.3d 988, 933 N.Y.S.2d 375 ; Matter of City of New York, 94 A.D.2d 724, 462 N.Y.S.2d 260, affd. 61 N.Y.2d 843, 473 N.Y.S.2d 963, 462 N.E.2d 140 ; Elmore Realty v. State of New York, 44 A.D.2d 621, 353 N.Y.S.2d......
-
In re Auth.
...claimants took some steps in furtherance of the assemblage after the condemnation was announced ( see e.g. Matter of City of New York, 94 A.D.2d 724, 724, 462 N.Y.S.2d 260 [1983], affd. 61 N.Y.2d 843, 473 N.Y.S.2d 963, 462 N.E.2d 140 [1984] ). There is no question that Brookfield and Colleg......