City of Troy v. Manufacturers Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 10 July 1968 |
| Citation | 291 N.Y.S.2d 434,30 A.D.2d 889 |
| Parties | CITY OF TROY, Respondent, v. MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL BANK et al., as Co-Trustees Under the Will of Harry Hall, Deceased, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Conrad H. Lang, Jr., Averill Park, for respondent.
Wager, Taylor, Howd & Brearton, Troy (James E. Brearton, Troy, of counsel) for appellants.
Before GIBSON, P.J., and HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, AULISI and STALEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County at Special Term, entered December 18, 1967, in Rensselaer County, which denied defendants' motion to confirm the report of the Commissioners of Appraisal herein; reduced the amount awarded by the Commissioners from $92,000 to $62,100; and denied the defendants' request for an additional allowance, pursuant to section 16 (subd. 2) of the Condemnation Law.
On or about May 11, 1965, the City of Troy, pursuant to article 15 of the General Municipal Law, commenced condemnation proceedings to acquire the property of the appellants consisting of a parcel of land, with the buildings thereon, situate at the southwest corner of Broadway and Seventh Avenue in the City of Troy.
On May 14, 1965 the County Court of Rensselaer County appointed Commissioners of Appraisal who viewed the premises on three occasions in the month of June 1965, and conducted hearings at which evidence of valuation was offered by the parties. The hearings were concluded on December 2, 1965 and, on September 28, 1967, the Commissioners made their report wherein they determined the value of the premises taken to be the sum of $92,000. Thereafter, a supplemental report was requested by the court for the purpose of obtaining a statement of the reasons on which the award was based. In their supplemental report, the Commissioners adhered to the $92,000 award and set forth the manner in which they arrived at the same.
By motion returnable in the County Court of Rensselaer County on October 24, 1967, the appellants sought an order rejecting the report and appointing new Commissioners unless the respondent stipulated to an increased award or, in the alternative, in the event the report was confirmed that interest at the rate of 4% Per annum be granted on the sum of $47,000 remaining to be paid from May 14, 1965; that costs be granted to the appellants; and, that an additional allowance of 5% Of the amount of the award be granted to the appellants pursuant to section 16 (subd. 2) of the Condemnation Law.
The County Court rejected the report of the Commissioners and proceeded to make its own determination of value, and reduced the amount awarded by the Commissioners from $92,000 to $62,100. The court also awarded costs to the appellants and denied their request for an additional allowance.
In reviewing a determination of Commissioners of Appraisal, the power of the courts is limited to confirmation or rejection of the report. A report may be set aside for irregularity or for error of law in the proceedings, or upon the grounds that the award is excessive or insufficient. (Condemnation Law § 15; 17 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 108:204; Matter of Huie (Fletcher-City of New York), 2 N.Y.2d 168, 157 N.Y.S.2d 957, 139 N.E.2d 140; Matter of Cibulas v. Village of Menands, 266 App.Div. 895, 42 N.Y.S.2d 787.)
Under this strictly limited scope of authority a court, in reviewing an award of Commissioners of Appraisal, may not, whatever the reason, reject the report of the Commissioners and make a new award, substituting its own judgment for that of the Commissioners. Thus, the award made by the court below, which is the court's own conclusion based upon the testimony, may not be sustained.
Awards will not be set aside on the ground that they are excessive or inadequate unless they are so obviously inadequate or excessive that they shock the sense of justice or the conscience of the court, and every...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Gas Co. v. Miles
...of this Court such valuation is so excessive that it shocks the Court's conscience and sense of justice. City of Troy v. Manufacturers Nat. Bank, 30 A.D.2d 889, 291 N.Y.S.2d 434. The Court is also of opinion that the valuation thus established is not supported by the evidence. Further, the ......
-
Home Gas Co. v. Miles
...of New York, 39 A.D.2d 984, 333 N.Y.S.2d 497; Merrithew v. State of New York, 38 A.D.2d 996, 329 N.Y.S.2d 476; Troy v. Manufacturers Nat. Bank, 30 A.D.2d 889, 291 N.Y.S.2d 434). Furthermore, in determining the proper amount of compensation to be made under these circumstances the measure mu......
-
Dodge v. Tierney
...Matter of City of Rochester (Cohen), 219 App.Div. 857, 221 N.Y.S. 805, affd. 246 N.Y. 551, 159 N.E. 647; City of Troy v. Manufacturers National Bank, 30 A.D.2d 889, 291 N.Y.S.2d 434; City of Little Falls v. R. Greene Real Estate Corporation, 27 A.D.2d 640, 277 N.Y.S.2d 126; Matter of City o......
-
Missouri State Park Bd. v. McDaniel
...Nichols, Chapter 26 (26.45). In New York an additional allowance of 5% has been allowed for delay. See City of Troy v. Manufacturers National Bank, 30 A.D.2d 889, 291 N.Y.S.2d 434 (1968). See also 27 Am.Jur.2d Eminent Domain, § 461, pp. 382--383, stating 'courts, even in the absence of stat......