City of New York, Matter of
| Decision Date | 02 April 1990 |
| Citation | 160 A.D.2d 696,553 N.Y.S.2d 789 |
| Parties | In the Matter of The CITY OF NEW YORK; Long Island Sound Realty Company, Appellant; The City of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Michael Rikon, P.C., New York City, for appellant.
Victor A. Kovner, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Leonard Koerner and Ronald E. Sternberg, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and BROWN, KUNZEMAN and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a condemnation proceeding, the claimant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated January 31, 1989, which denied its motion for an additional allowance under EDPL 701.
ORDERED that Justice Brown has been substituted for former Presiding Justice Mollen (see, 22 NYCRR 670.2[c]; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination in accordance herewith.
Prior to August 1987 EDPL 701 provided for a discretionary award of additional allowances to reimburse a condemnee for expert services. The Legislature has amended EDPL 701 (see, L.1987, ch. 771 §§ 1, 2) and reimbursement is now permitted for "attorney, appraiser, and engineer". We find that the amended version of EDPL 701 should have been applied to the claimant's motion.
The general rule is that a statute is to be construed as prospective unless the language of the statute, either expressly or by necessary implication, requires that it be given a retroactive construction. An exception to the general rule is that, to the extent they do not impair vested rights or bestow additional rights, remedial statutes are to be given retroactive construction.
The amended version of EDPL 701 did not establish a new right since EDPL former 701 already provided for the recovery of certain litigation expenses. Rather, the amended statute merely expanded the right to recover, and may be considered a remedial statute (see, McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 1 Statutes § 54[a]; see also, Coffman v. Coffman, 60 A.D.2d 181, 188, 400 N.Y.S.2d 833; Lewittes & Sons, Inc. v. Perlow, 254 App.Div. 94, 3 N.Y.S.2d 916). Since the claimant moved for additional allowances after the court's initial decision, and its right to such allowances did not accrue until after there was an award, order or judgment, the amended version of EDPL 701 is applicable to its motion ( see, Matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galeana v. Lemongrass on Broadway Corp.
...defined as any amendment that "merely expand[s] the right to recover," Matter of City of New York (Long Is. Sound Realty Co.), 160 A.D.2d 696, 697, 553 N.Y.S.2d 789, 790 (2d Dept.1990) (citing McKinney's Statutes § 54(a) ), serve as an exception to this general rule against retroactive oper......
-
Nelson v. Hsbc Bank U.S.
...Matter of Hynson [ American Motor Sales Corp.-Chrysler Corp.], 164 A.D.2d 41, 48, 561 N.Y.S.2d 589; Matter of City of New York [ Long Is. Soung Realty Co.], 160 A.D.2d 696, 553 N.Y.S.2d 789). The purpose of the Restoration Act was to rewrite unintended judicial interpretations and reaffirm ......
-
Johnson v. Space Saver Corp.
...bestow additional rights, remedial statutes are to be given retroactive construction". (Matter of the City of New York [Long Is. Sound Realty Co.], 160 A.D.2d 696, 697, 553 N.Y.S.2d 789 [2d Dept.1990] ). Remedial statutes are those whose purpose is to correct imperfections in prior law. Cad......
-
Leone v. Leewood Service Station, Inc.
...957, 490 N.Y.S.2d 54; Mendler v. Federal Ins. Co., 159 Misc.2d 1099, 607 N.Y.S.2d 1000; see also, Matter of City of New York [Long Is. Sound Realty Co.], 160 A.D.2d 696, 553 N.Y.S.2d 789). Getty was liable under the Navigation Law as the owner of the underground tanks (see, 145 Kisco Ave. C......