Spano v. State
| Citation | 253 N.Y.S.2d 730,22 A.D.2d 757 |
| Decision Date | 29 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 40632,40632 |
| Parties | Maria SPANO, Respondent, v. The STATE of New York, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany, for appellant (Douglas L. Manley, Albany, of counsel).
Rizzo, Aloi, Grasso & Urciuoli, Syracuse, for respondent (Domenic R. Urciuoli, Syracuse, of counsel).
Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, NOONAN, and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.
The claimant was awarded $55,500 for the entire taking of her property. It was conceded that the highest and best use for this property was commercial. At the time of the appropriation there was a dwelling house and combination garage and work shop on the property. The trial court awarded $40,850 as the market value of the land and $14,700 for the value of the buildings. The expert for the claimant as well as the State testified the buildings would of necessity have to be removed from the property to permit its use for commercial purposes. It was error, therefore, to award anything for the value of the buildings while at the same time fixing the land value for commercial usage since the two bases are entirely inconsistent (New York Central & H. R. R. Co. v. Domproff, 63 Misc. 211, 116 N.Y.S. 924; Matter of Erlanger, 237 N.Y. 159, 142 N.E. 571). Under the facts here the commercial value of the land was in no way enhanced by the value of the buildings (Matter of City of Rochester [Smith St. Bridge], 234 App.Div. 583, 255 N.Y.S. 801).
Following acquisition of the property the State did salvage $100.00 by the sale of the buildings. This, of course, should inure to the benefit of the claimant by being added to the award for the land.
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved and reversed and new findings and conclusions made.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redevelopment Agency v. Elementis Pigments
...are valued based on another." (Appraisal Institute, Appraisal of Real Estate (12th ed.2001), p. 324; see Spano v. State of New York, (1964) 22 A.D.2d 757, 253 N.Y.S.2d 730 ["It was error ... to award anything for the value of the buildings while at the same time fixing the land value for co......
-
Town of Hempstead (Point Lookout in Vicinity of Sea Spray Drive East), Matter of, 1
...396 N.Y.S.2d 886, 353 N.E.2d 849; Irv-Ceil Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 43 A.D.2d 775, 350 N.Y.S.2d 784; Spano v. State of New York, 22 A.D.2d 757, 253 N.Y.S.2d 730). However, this case is manifestly different. Not only did the improvements not have to be destroyed, but they were actu......
-
Town of Hempstead, Matter of, 1
...45 , affd. 39 N.Y.2d 958 [386 N.Y.S.2d 886, 353 N.E.2d 849]; Irv-Ceil Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 43 A.D.2d 775 ; Spano v. State of New York, 22 A.D.2d 757 ). However, this case is manifestly different. Not only did the improvements not have to be destroyed, but they were actually ut......
-
Acme Theatres, Inc. v. State
...York, 18 N.Y.2d 897, 276 N.Y.S.2d 633, 223 N.E.2d 41; Matter of Erlanger, 237 N.Y. 159, 164, 142 N.E. 571, 573; Spano v. State of New York, 22 A.D.2d 757, 253 N.Y.S.2d 730.) Such an inconsistency is present in the award below. An award of different unit values for separate parts of a single......