Malden Equipment Corp. v. Malden Redevelopment Authority

• Decision Date: 04 January 1968
• Parties: MALDEN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. MALDEN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 211

233 N.E.2d 211

353 Mass. 495

MALDEN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. MALDEN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued Dec. 8, 1967.

Decided Jan. 4, 1968.

Henry P. Monaghan, Boston, for respondent.

Joseph F. Hodapp, Boston, for petitioner.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER and SPIEGEL, JJ.

WHITTEMORE, Justice.

The respondent in this proceeding to assess damages for the taking of land in Malden on December 31, 1962, has excepted to rulings that restricted the respondent in its effort to show that the taken parcel was enhanced in value due to the prior announcement of the public improvement, the Suffolk Square-Faulkner Urban Renewal Project, of which the taking was a part, and that the petitioner's evidence of value reflected this enhancement. There was error.

The respondent was wrongly denied the opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner's expert as to possible enhancement. The expert had testified that he knew a redevelopment project was in process and that the petitioner's land was within it, having been taken for the purpose of the project. The petitioner's brief summarizes what ensued: 'He was * * * asked several questions leading up to the questions whether he had taken into consideration the value to the taken parcel of the urban renewal project, and whether the project had any effect on the value of the property. Objections were sustained and exceptions taken.' These questions related to an important issue in the case (Cole v. Boston Edison Co., 338 Mass. 661, 665--666, 157 N.E.2d 209, and cases cited) and the respondent should have been allowed to cross-examine. This would have been so even if the witness had not testified that he had given weight to comparable sales made before and after December 31, 1962. As the direct testimony stood, exploration of the subject was an important part of the respondent's case. That the witness on direct examination had answered in the negative the inquiry whether he had taken 'into consideration at all, any enhancement of the property by virtue of the taking by the Malden Redevelopment Authority' was not a bar to cross-examination. On the contrary, it emphasized the appropriateness of questions to test the assertion. No offer of proof was required. The respondent could not know what the witness would answer.

The respondent in opening indicated its intention to offer testimony to show enhancement in the value of the property due to the...