Ephraim Holding Corp. v. State
| Decision Date | 27 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 43779,43779 |
| Citation | 30 A.D.2d 623,290 N.Y.S.2d 700 |
| Parties | EPHRAIM HOLDING CORP., Respondent-Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Appellant-Respondent. Claim |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David Marcus, New York City, for respondent-appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Henderson G. Riggs, Albany, for appellant-respondent.
Before GIBSON, P.J., and HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, STALEY and GABRIELLI, JJ.
Cross appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims which awarded damages for an appropriation of real property.
The permanent appropriation was of the westerly portion of premises known as Nos. 509--511 Main Street, New Rochelle. The portion remaining to claimant separated the appropriated parcel from premises to the east known as No. 507 Main Street, also owned by claimant. On this remaining portion of Nos. 507-- 511 Main Street, the State appropriated a temporary easement for removing or razing the building on the parcel taken in fee. The demolition of the building on the appropriated parcel exposed to view the westerly side of the building on the premises at No. 507 Main Street, this west wall presenting an unfinished and unsightly appearance which could be corrected at a cost of $5,100. The wall involved was not a party wall. There was no physical connection between the buildings, which were sissimilar, were construed at different times, were acquired by claimant at different times and were rented to various tenants, none of them or their businesses having any relation to any of the others. Nevertheless, because claimant owned both buildings claimant's expert treated and valued them as a unit. The trial court adopted this theory and included in its award consequential damage of $5,100 allocable to the 507 Main Street premises. There existed in this case no unity of use and that factor is one of the essential predicates of an award. 'Ownership by the same owner of other lands in close proximity to the appropriated land standing by itself is without legal significance.' Matter of Board of Supervisors of County of Monroe v. Sherlo Realty, 32 Misc.2d 579, 588, 224 N.Y.S.2d 244, affd. 19 A.D.2d 590, 240 N.Y.S.2d 950, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 1172; 248 N.Y.S.2d 52, 197 N.E.2d 540. We find Matter of Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation v. Hudson & Manhattan Corp., 27 A.D.2d 32, 276 N.Y.S.2d 283, mod. 20 N.Y.2d 457, 285 N.Y.S.2d 24, 231 N.E.2d 734, cert. den. 390 U.S. 1002, 88 S.Ct. 1244, 20 L.Ed.2d 103 (1968), upon which claimant relies, in no way apposite.
The State questions only that part of the consequential damage allocated to the 507 Main...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strong v. State
...evidence establishing that there was unity of title and unity of use, an essential predicate to an award (Ephraim Holding Corp. v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 623, 290 N.Y.S.2d 700). The fact that the gravel on the larger site was depletable did not alter the unity of use status (cf. Coone......
-
Erly Realty Development, Inc., v. State
...654). This was not a situation where unrelated uses were going on side by side on contiguous parcels (see Ephraim Holding Corp. v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 623, 290 N.Y.S.2d 700). Without actual unity of title, the exceptions to the general rule requiring unity of ownership for the allo......
-
City of Buffalo v. Goldman
...York, 38 A.D.2d 241, 328 N.Y.S.2d 913; Matter of City of New York (O'Brien), 32 A.D.2d 1059, 304 N.Y.S.2d 74; Ephraim Holding Corp. v. State, 30 A.D.2d 623, 290 N.Y.S.2d 700; Jacoby v. State of New York, 26 A.D.2d 724, 271 N.Y.S.2d 756). The parcels here were separated by High Street, the d......
-
Mobil Oil Corp. v. State
...v. State of New York, 43 Misc.2d 631, 634--635, 251 N.Y.S.2d 766, aff'd 23 A.D.2d 434, 261 N.Y.S.2d 435; Ephraim Holding Corp. v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 623, 290 N.Y.S.2d 700, and also 4 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3d Ed.) pp. 715--733). Under these circumstances we fail to see how it ca......