Sukiennik v. State, 42571
| Citation | 271 N.Y.S.2d 684,26 A.D.2d 769 |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 42571,42571 |
| Parties | Frank J. SUKIENNIK and Charlotte R. Sukiennik, his wife, Respondents, v. The STATE of New York, Appellant. Claim |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany, for appellant (Joseph F. Gibbons, Albany, of counsel).
Brennan & Brennan, Buffalo, for respondents (Wm. R. Brennan, Buffalo, of counsel).
Before WILLIAMS, P.J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, DEL VECCHIO and MARSH, JJ.
We find it necessary to remit this matter for a new trial on the question of consequential damages only, for the record does not contain sufficient proof to sustain the finding of $31,285.32 for consequential damages. The trial court properly stated that 'it is perfectly obvious that the appropriation has damaged claimants' property extensively'. The court, however, indicated that it made no award for loss of access 'for which claimants made no claim before us'. It is undisputed that claimants' present means of access is considerably less convenient than before the elimination of the accesses from Delaware Avenue and from the intersection of Delaware Avenue and Bonnett Avenue. Surely if the State could have achieved the elevation of the highway by some other plan than the one employed and thereby avoided the elimination of at least a portion of the accesses formerly enjoyed, and this might be the subject of expert proof on the new trial, it might be determined that the inequity created by the method used may bring this case within the principle of Meloon Bronze Foundry, Inc. v. State of New York, 10 A.D.2d 905, 200 N.Y.S.2d 563. As was said in Holmes v. State of New York, 279 App.Div. 489, 491, 111 N.Y.S.2d 634, 636: business, proof of this fact may stamp the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petruso v. Schlaefer
......Facts are also drawn from state court judicial records presently before the court. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d ......
-
Welbilt Corp. v. State
...38 A.D.2d 652, 327 N.Y.S.2d 162); there is no demonstrable proof of permanent damage to claimant's business (Sukiennik v. State of New York, 26 A.D.2d 769, 271 N.Y.S.2d 684); the partial and temporary closing of the driveway and doors established inconvenience but not unsuitability. (Pennin......
-
Penningroth v. State, 47732
...21 A.D.2d 173, 249 N.Y.S.2d 511) or that the diminished access caused serious permanent damage to his business (Sukiennik v. State of New York, 26 A.D.2d 769, 271 N.Y.S.2d 684). Appellant argues that the doctrine of Damnum absque injuria does not apply in those cases where there was an actu......
-
Cousin v. State, 50417
...v. State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 604, 285 N.Y.S.2d 741), and is thus for the trial court to decide. (See, also, Sukiennik v. State of New York, 26 A.D.2d 769, 271 N.Y.S.2d 684.) The claimants' two contentions, that the court should make an award for fixtures and that consequential damages to......