Kingston Urban Renewal Agency v. Strand Properties, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1969 |
| Parties | KINGSTON URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, Appellant, v. STRAND PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
S. James Matthews, Kingston, for appellant.
Richard B. Overbagh, Kingston, for respondent.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and STALEY, GREENBLOTT and COOKE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Ulster County, entered April 26, 1968, which confirmed a report of commissioners of appraisal which based their award on the value of the land plus the replacement cost of the building thereon less depreciation.
Formerly used for a banking institution on the ground floor and for office and loft purposes on the upper two stories, at the time of appropriation the structure was rented to and used by a volunteer social service agency. Defendant's president and sole stockholder, a restauranteur, had thoughts of utilizing the premises as a public eating place. Clearly, the building lacked such uniqueness as to be regarded as a specialty and, in the absence of a clear showing of such a status and no reason having been advanced for reliance solely upon cost, the award could not be predicated solely on land value plus the cost of improvements (City of Binghamton v. Rosefsky, 29 A.D.2d 820, 287 N.Y.S.2d 249; Levine v. State of New York, 24 A.D.2d 524, 260 N.Y.S.2d 226; Guthmuller v. State of New York, 23 A.D.2d 597, 256 N.Y.S.2d 526). Determinations thus bottomed on an erroneous principle of law must, of course, be rejected (Matter of Huie (Fletcher), 2 N.Y.2d 168, 171, 157 N.Y.S.2d 957, 960, 139 N.E.2d 140, 142; Matter of Ford (Swartwout), 26 A.D.2d 980, 274 N.Y.S.2d 688). Although evidence of reproduction cost less depreciation was admissible as an element or circumstance to be considered along with all other circumstances in arriving at a proper award, it was not admissible as a measure of damages (Matter of Huie (Fletcher), Supra; Matter of City of New York (Blackwell's Island Bridge), 198 N.Y. 84, 88, 91 N.E. 278, 279, 41 L.R.A.,N.S., 411; Evans v. State of New York, 31 A.D.2d 565, 294 N.Y.S.2d 349; Tilo Co. v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 743, 291 N.Y.S.2d 144; New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Hotel Gibber, 28 A.D.2d 1042, 283 N.Y.S.2d 740; Bond v. State of New York, 24 A.D.2d 778, 263 N.Y.S.2d 732; 5 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3d ed.), § 20.2(1)).
Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the County Court of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v. Patchen Post, Inc.
...Co. v. State of New York, 16 N.Y.2d 41, 44-45, 261 N.Y.S.2d 880, 881-882, 209 N.E.2d 542, 543-544; Kingston Urban Renewal Agency v. Strand Props., 33 A.D.2d 594, 304 N.Y.S.2d 413 (Cooke, J.)). Turning at once to those principles, we note that, though an owner is guaranteed "just compensatio......
-
Amsterdam Urban Renewal Agency v. Masonic Ass'n of Amsterdam, Inc.
...necessary to be considered a specialty and was clearly susceptible to the rule of fair market value (Kingston Urban Renewal Agency v. Strand Props., 33 A.D.2d 594, 304 N.Y.S.2d 413; City of Binghamton v. Rosefsky, 29 A.D.2d 820, 287 N.Y.S.2d 249; cf. Keator v. State of New York, 23 N.Y.2d 3......
-
Enmac Realty Corp. v. State
...'Determinations thus bottomed on an erroneous principle of law must, of course, be rejected * * *'. (Kingston Urban Renewal Agency v. Strand Props., 23 A.D.2d 594, 304 N.Y.S.2d 413). Consequently, the after value of the building at which the court arrived was not within the range of accepta......
-
Passaretti v. State, 50532
...the land and the building separately because of the circumstances presented by the instant property (cf. Kingston Urban Renewal Agency v. Strand Props., 33 A.D.2d 594, 304 N.Y.S.2d 413; Guthmuller v. State of New York, 23 A.D.2d 597, 256 N.Y.S.2d 526). Second, a review of the entire record ......