Gottfried v. State
| Citation | 201 N.Y.S.2d 649,23 Misc.2d 733 |
| Decision Date | 17 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | 34506,34347,Nos. 34349,34348,35298,33181,35210,35948,35478,s. 34349 |
| Parties | Kathleen GOTTFRIED, Claimant, v. STATE of New York. LARK HOLDING CORP., Claimant, v. STATE of New York. Eileen D. VINCENT, as Administratrix of the Estate of Jack M. Vincent, Deceased, Claimant, v. STATE of New York. Elsie B. JACOBS, Claimant, v. STATE of New York. Frances MILLER, Claimant, v. STATE of New York CITY OF NEW YORK, Claimant, v. STATE of New York. PARKWAY CENTER, INC., (Marway, Inc.) Claimant, v. STATE of New York. PARKWAY CENTER, INC., Claimant, v. STATE of New York (two cases). Claims |
| Court | New York Court of Claims |
Goldwater & Flynn, New York City, for claimants Gottfried (Cl. No. 34349), Parkway Center, Inc., (Cl. No. 35298) and Parkway Center, Inc., (Cl. No. 35478) by Monroe Goldwater and Leon Liner, New York City, of counsel.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., for the State of New York, by James G. Austin and Paul F. Brown, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel.
Goldwater & Flynn, New York City, for claimants Lark Holding Corp. (Cl. No. 34348) and Parkway Center, Inc., (Marway, Inc., Cl. No. 35210), by Monroe Goldwater and Leon Liner, New York City, of counsel.
Charles H. Tenney, Corporation Counsel, New York City, for City of New York (Cl. No. 34506).
DeGraff, Foy, Conway & Holt-Harris, Albany, for Eileen D. Vincent, as Administratrix (Cl. No. 33181), by Harold L. Herzstein, New York City, of counsel.
Ralph K. Jacobs, Jr., New York City, for Elsie B. Jacobs (Cl. No. 35948) by Robert J. Randell, New York City, of counsel.
Goldwater & Flynn, New York City, substituted during the trial by Samuel Goldstein & Sons, New York City, for Frances Miller (Cl. No. 34347) by Samuel Goldstein, New York City, of counsel.
The above are claims filed against the State of New York as a result of the appropriation by the State, acting by and through the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene, pursuant to Section 46 of the Mental Hygiene Law, of certain real property, buildings and fixtures, situate in the Borough of the Bronx, State of New York, for the purpose of erecting thereon a new mental hygiene hospital, more particularly described on the Appropriation Map and Description of land acquired for said project, designated as Map No. 1, Kathleen Gottfried and others, which was filed in the office of the Register of the City of New York for the County of the Bronx, on the 31st day of August, 1956, at which time tile was vested in the State of New York.
It was stipulated that a copy of said Map and Description was personally served on the claimants.
The various properties as shown on said map are more particularly described in the descriptions attached to the said filed map, and said descriptions are by reference made a part of this decision.
Claimant, Kathleen Gottfried, received from the State, on November 6, 1957, the sum of $1,500,000, pursuant to an agreement for partial payment. The State contends that this payment was to be without interest. The Court reads no such waiver of interest in the agreement and, therefore, interest thereupon will be awarded and made payable as hereinafter indicated.
The separate realty claims demanded the amounts hereunder set alongside of each named claim as their damages:
1. Kathleen Gottfried,originally $6,000,000 amended at the
-------------------
trial by order entered without objection, to $7,200,000
divided as follows: Land $3,600,000
Buildings $3,600,000
2. Lark Holding Corp. $4,500
----------------------------
3. Jack M. Vincent $75,000
----------------------------
4. Elsie B. Jacobs $25,000
----------------------------
5. Frances Miller $52,000
----------------------------
6. The City of New York $137,535
----------------------------
Claim No. 6, The City of New York, has been settled by written stipulation which will go into effect as soon as governmental technicalities, imposed by law, shall have been complied with. Hence, there shall be no further consideration herein of the said claim.
As to the remainder of the realty claims, it was agreed that the testimony adduced with reference to realty values in the principal claim, namely, that of Kathleen Gottfried, should be applied by the Court, as far as it was applicable, to all the claims, with the further agreement that separate Findings and Judgments are to be made in each case.
The cases of Kathleen Gottfried, Lark Holding and Frances Miller were all tried by Mr. Monroe Goldwater. However, during the trial, Frances Miller desired to change her attorney. With the consent of all parties, the Court permitted her to change attorneys and her case was tried separately and de novo.
The cases of Elsie Jacobs and Jack M. Vincent were tried by other attorneys who agreed by stipulation, however, to accept the land valuations offered in the main case, in the event of a favorable judgment for the claimants Jacobs and Vincent.
The Marway, Inc. claim, one for fixtures, is closely entwined in much of the proof given in the main case. The Marway claim was originally filed by Wasserman and Shagan as attorneys for the claimant. It was for $27,423.49. It had attached to it a minutely detailed scheduled of each item claimed and its alleged value. It was prepared by one Frank Ruden who, however, was not called at the trial as a witness.
Mr. Monroe Goldwater was substituted as attorney for the claimant in the Marway claim. He filed an order amending the claim to $40,245. This claim referred to fixtures in Buildings 'E' and 'F', and, prior to the trial, had been assigned to Parkway Center, Inc.
In addition thereto, Parkway Center, Inc., which is the personal corporation of Harold Gottfried, husband of the claimant, also took assignments of all other fixture claims of tenants and filed a claim therefor.
Parkway Center, Inc., Claim No. 35478, was for fixtures in Building 'A' for $90,515.
Parkway Center, Inc., Claim No. 35298, was for fixtures in Buildings 'B', 'C', 'D', 'G', 'I' and 'J' for a total of $72,150.
All the aforementioned parcels of land form the entire taking by the State. These parcels are contiguous and may be compared in shape to one's left index finger. That part of the finger which joins the hand, or the southerly part, adjoins the New York Rapid Transit Westchester Avenue Yards at Westchester Avenue.
The inner part of the finger, or the westerly side, is generally parallel to the course of the New York, New Have and Hartford Railroad Company tracks; the tip of the finger runs generally along the south line of the Bronx Pelham Parkway and the outside of the finger, or easterly line, runs along the westerly side of the Hutchinson River Parkway Extension down to the Westchester Avenue exit of the Parkway.
The Court believes that a general discussion of the Kathleen Gottfried case will lead to an understanding of the basic factors affecting the awards of damages in all the other cases, including that of Frances Miller which, however, shall also be discussed on its own independent merits.
In the case of Gottfried, the parties stipulated that the land involved consisted of 88.310 acres, exclusive of 7.112 acres which was land in the bed of Westchester Creek and Stoney Creek, both of which were filled in before the appropriation herein. When they were filled in was not proven. The State claimed ownership of this creek land on the ground that it was land in the bed of navigable creeks, which, it claimed, although filled in, were still the lands of the State, and the claimant claims it all on the ground that the creeks have been filled in and the land is subject only to certain charges, as provided in Chapter 425, Laws of 1954, Administrative Code, § D41-45.1, by which the City of New York is empowered to sell its right and interest in Westchester Creek to the adjoining owners.
The land is divided into two parcels, Parcel 'A' and Parcel 'B'. Parcel 'A' comprises on the west the limits of the property running parallel to the land of the New York, New Haven and Hartford RR. Co., to the southerly line of the Bronx Pelham Parkway; then on the east for about half of its length on a generally straight line towards the south about 225 feet east of the west boundary line, and for the remainder of its easterly portion on a line widening as it courses southerly from the aforementioned 225 feet to about 800 feet to the lands of the City of New York, or nearly so.
Parcel 'B' comprises the balance of the land owned by claimant. (See Cl.'s Ex. 22.)
Parcel 'A' is land generally dry and Parcel 'B' is land generally marshy.
The lands of all the other claimants adjoin and are akin to the marshy land in Parcel 'B'. These are located at the easterly extremity of the lands taken and are about equidistant from the north and south location of the index finger.
Throughout the lands comprising the Gottfried claim, except the upper third thereof, and the lands of the other claimants, there are map streets and lots designated, but never laid out. For convenience, the Tax Office of Bronx County has subdivided these parcels as tax lots.
Within Parcel 'A', there were ten warehouses, each one-story high, nine of which were in dimension 125 feet wide by 400 feet long, designated as Buildings A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and J, and one, Building I, which was 75 feet wide by 400 feet long.
These warehouses extended from the south to the north along the westerly side of the land. The most southerly buildings, A, F and G, were in tandem; next in tandem came B and E, and next followed C and D; next in single succession came H, I and J. To the west of the buildings from north to south, and between the buildings, there were macadam...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Mauro, MERRITT-CHAPMAN
...equipment is personalty, since the bowling alleys in Lesser were also removable without damage to the building. See Gottfried v. State, 23 Misc.2d 733, 759, 201 N.Y.S.2d 649; Farmers' National Bank of Sussex v. Salmon, 118 N.J.Eq. 241, 243, 178 A. 635; Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N.Y. For thes......
-
Garrett v. State
...did not change boundary lines, so that plaintiff's riparian rights ended where the man-made tract began. In Gottfried v. State, 23 Misc.2d 733, 201 N.Y.S.2d 649, 666 (Ct.Claims 1960), mod. 14 A.D.2d 612, 218 N.Y.S.2d 286 (1961), aff'd 11 N.Y.2d 1084, 230 N.Y.S.2d 229, 184 N.E.2d 197 (1962),......
-
Richards-Dowdle, Inc. v. State
...made herein, it could have brought civil action against the claimant or could have interposed a counterclaim. (Gottfried v. State of New York, 23 Misc.2d 733, 201 N.Y.S.2d 649; modified on other grounds 14 A.D.2d 612, 218 N.Y.S.2d 286, aff'd 11 N.Y.2d 1084, 230 N.Y.S.2d 229, 184 N.E.2d The ......
-
Gurwitz v. State
...for it, which prompted its removal by the tenant. Reference was made to the decision regarding fixtures in the case of Gottfried v. State, 23 Misc.2d 733, 201 N.Y.S.2d 649. The decision in that case was based on facts not identical with these. There, the State was held responsible in damage......