Owasco River Ry., Inc. v. State

• Decision Date: 02 March 1992
• Docket Number: No. 74489,74489
• Citation: 181 A.D.2d 665,580 N.Y.S.2d 466
• Parties: OWASCO RIVER RAILWAY, INC., Respondent, v. The STATE of New York, Appellant. (Claim)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 466

580 N.Y.S.2d 466

181 A.D.2d 665

OWASCO RIVER RAILWAY, INC., Respondent, v. The STATE of New York, Appellant. (Claim No. 74489.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

March 2, 1992.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (Peter J. Dooley, Dennis Hurley and Michael S. Buskus, of counsel), for appellant.

Bragar & Wexler, P.C., New York City (Raymond A. Bragar, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and SULLIVAN, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a claim to recover damages for the appropriation of property, the defendant State of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), entered June 14, 1990, as granted the claimant's motion to compel it to pay a judgment of the same court, dated December 14, 1988, and denied those branches of its cross motion which were to reopen the claim and interplead Wayne Ryder.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the claimant's motion is denied, those branches of the cross motion of the State of New York which were to reopen the claim and interplead Wayne Ryder are granted, and the matter is remitted to the Court of Claims for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Initially, we note that the filing by the State of New York of a Certificate of No Appeal with respect to a judgment dated December 14, 1988, did not bar the State from appealing the subsequent order, since the judgment only determined the amount of an appropriation award and did not determine the rights of the parties to that award.

Turning to the merits, although the Court of Claims has the authority to grant equitable relief incidental to a claim for a money judgment against the State (see, Psaty v. Duryea, 306 N.Y. 413, 416, 118 N.E.2d 584; Ames Contr. Co. v. Herbert H. Lehman Coll., City Univ. of New York, 108 A.D.2d 609, 611, 485 N.Y.S.2d 259; Williams Press v. State Univ. of New York, 45 A.D.2d 397, 403, 357 N.Y.S.2d 920, rev'd on other grounds 37 N.Y.2d 434, 373 N.Y.S.2d 72, 335 N.E.2d 299), "[m]andamus lies to compel performance of a purely ministerial act [only] where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought" (Matter of Legal Aid Soc. of Sullivan County v. Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16, 439 N.Y.S.2d 882, 422 N.E.2d 542; see also, Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525, 539, 475 N.Y.S.2d 247, 463 N.E.2d 588).

Here, the claimant did not have "a clear legal right" to the entire award since there existed a contract vendee, Wayne Ryder, who had an equitable interest in the appropriated property and, thus, an interest in the...