Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 27 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 44364,44364 |
| Parties | Esther TAYLOR, Individually and Esther E. Taylor, as Executrix of the Estate of Everett H. Taylor, Appellants, v. The STATE of New York, Respondent. Claim |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Willis Sargent, Syracuse, for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Douglas L. Manley, Albany, for respondent.
Before DEL VECCHIO, J.P., and WITMER, GABRIELLI, BASTOW, and HENRY, JJ.
The Trial court erred in dismissing the complaint at the close of the evidence upon the ground that claimants had failed to make out a claim against the State. Claimants are the owners of property located on the south side of Route 175 in the Town of Onondaga upon which a retail store has been operated for some years. Following reconstruction of the state highway in 1963 and 1964, during which the grade of the highway was raised above the level of claimants' property, the State constructed a depressed concrete drainage gutter two and one-half to three feet deep along the south side of the road in front of claimants' property. As a result of this gutter, vehicles going to and from claimants' store strike their tailpipes and bumpers on the concrete, and snow, ice, dirt and gravel collect in the gutter. Water accumulates to a depth of 22 inches and spreads over the surrounding area. By reason of these conditions, delivery trucks and customers approaching claimants' premises often use the driveway of a neighboring property owner rather than traverse the gutter in front of claimants' store.
Upon this record we find that the reconstruction of Route 175 with the depressed gutter left no suitable means of access to claimants' property, for which damages should be awarded. (Meloon Bronze Foundry, Inc. v. State of New York, 6 A.D.2d 993, 176 N.Y.S.2d 452.) 'Suitable access now is any access by which entrance may be had to a property without difficulty' (Slepian v. State of New York, 48 Misc.2d 340, 342, 264 N.Y.S.2d 826, 829, quoted with approval in Priestly v. State of New York, 23 N.Y.2d 152 at p. 155, 295 N.Y.S.2d 659 at p. 662, 242 N.E.2d 827 at p. 829), and suitability is related to the highest and best use of the property. (Priestly v. State of New York, supra, p. 156, 295 N.Y.S.2d p. 663, 242 N.E.2d p. 829.) Tested by these standards, the access available to claimants' commercial premises was not suitable. Testimony received at the trial as to the difference in market value before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dumala v. State
...presented some testimony to the effect that cars scraped their tailpipes in entering and exiting subject, see Taylor v. State, 32 A.D.2d 884, 302 N.Y.S.2d 174 (4th Dept., 1969), but the State's contradicting testimony seemed more probative and this together with the photographs of the area ......
-
State ex rel. Dept. of Highways v. Linnecke
...N.Y.S.2d 882 (N.Y.App.1969); Columbus Holding Corp. v. State, 60 Misc.2d 199, 302 N.Y.S.2d 407 (Ct.Cl.N.Y.1969); Taylor v. State, 32 A.D.2d 884, 302 N.Y.S.2d 174 (N.Y.App.1969); In re New Police Station House Pct. No. 68, 32 A.D.2d 1059, 304 N.Y.S.2d 74 Generally, the emerging weight of aut......
-
Columbus Holding Corp. v. State, 48114
...827; Argersinger v. State of New York, 32 A.D.2d 708, 299 N.Y.S.2d 882, (3d Dept., May 21, 1969); Taylor v. State of New York, 32 A.D.2d 884, 302 N.Y.S.2d 174, (4th Dept., June 27, 1969); King v. State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 604, 285 N.Y.S.2d 741; Laken Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 29......
-
Strohsahl's, Inc. v. State
...little doubt that there was no reasonable or suitable means of entry to the land left after this appropriation. (Taylor v. State of New York, 32 A.D.2d 884, 302 N.Y.S.2d 174; Lundquist v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 950, 306 N.Y.S.2d 707.) While much of the testimony dealt with the circuit......