New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Moratto
| Decision Date | 20 May 1966 |
| Citation | 25 A.D.2d 913,270 N.Y.S.2d 44 |
| Parties | NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Anthony V. MORATTO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert J. McKeegan, Delhi, for appellant.
J. Leland Rickard, Deposit, for respondent (Roderick Schutt, of counsel).
Before GIBSON, P.J., and HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, TAYLOR and AULISI, JJ.
The award by the Commissioners of Appraisal of $1,255 for the fee taking of some 18.1 acres for purposes of a transmission line, amounting as it does, to approximately $69 per acre, has ample support in the record; and, indeed, appellant owner's brief does not attack it as inadequate and questions only the award of $500 for consequential damages to the wooded, mountainous lands westerly of the taking. The latter award does indeed seem somewhat low, and a higher award would doubtless be sustainable; but in view of the remaining access by right of way existing prior to the taking and in view, also, of the extensive crossing and other rights reserved to defendant by the taking itself, it cannot be said that the severance damage award is unreasonably disproportionate to the amount awarded for the fee. Applying one test of our strictly circumscribed authority in cases of this nature (see Matter of Huie (Fletcher-City of New York), 2 N.Y.2d 168, 170--171, 157 N.Y.S.2d 957, 959--960, 139 N.E.2d 140, 141--142; which remains in point as regards Commissioners' awards of this nature although no longer fully applicable to those by commissions under the New York City Water Supply Act), we cannot say that the award was so shocking as to warrant interference on our part.
On this particular appeal, there is presented the sole, narrow issue of consequential damage, dependent, in this case, upon a simple factual evaluation of a single separated parcel; and, therefore, we find, though contrary to appellant's contention, that the Commissioners' report is sufficiently specific to permit proper review.
Judgment and order affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gitlin v. Hostetter
...11 A.D.2d 883, 884, 202 N.Y.S.2d 914, 916, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 891, 216 N.Y.S.2d 703, 175 N.E.2d 831; and see New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Moratto, 25 A.D.2d 913, 270 N.Y.S.2d 44). Remittal 'merely to enable the (Authority) to correct the language of its decision would be an unnecessary a......
-
New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Hotel Gibber, Inc.
...(Matter of Huie (Fletcher-City of New York), 2 N.Y.2d 168, 157 N.Y.S.2d 957, 139 N.E.2d 140; New York State Electric & Gas Corporation v. Moratto, 25 A.D.2d 913, 270 N.Y.S.2d 44). Unless the findings are so grossly inadequate as to prevent adequate judicial review or the award is so unreaso......
-
Niagara County v. Wendt
...New York, 26 A.D.2d 964, 274 N.Y.S.2d 1004). While we recognize the liberal standard used in these cases (New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Moratto, 25 A.D.2d 913, 270 N.Y.S.2d 44; Matter of City of Rochester (Smith Street Bridge) 234 App.Div. 583, 255 N.Y.S. 801; cf. Matter of Ford (Sisk......
-
New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Tompkins
...apprised of the Commissioners' finding thereof. Even applying the liberal standard used in these cases (New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Moratto, 25 A.D.2d 913, 270 N.Y.S.2d 44), the findings set forth in this report are totally inadequate to permit proper review. We are obliged to re......