Tucci v. State
| Decision Date | 01 December 1971 |
| Citation | 29 N.Y.2d 836,277 N.E.2d 784,327 N.Y.S.2d 851 |
| Parties | , 277 N.E.2d 784 Armando TUCCI, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 28 A.D.2d 774, 280 N.Y.S.2d 789. Louis Weiner, Port Chester, for claimants-appellants.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. , for respondents.
Owners of two adjacent lots each of which had a frontage of 50 feet on street and on which they operated a part-time cemetery memorial stone business, sought an award from State for consequential damages on the ground that closing 56 feet of frontage on street by erection of a traffic control barrier because of construction of expressway which necessitated appropriation of a portion of street resulted in a de facto appropriation of claimants' fee and easement in, to and over street. The Court of Claims entered an award and cross appeals were taken.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment and dismissed the claim on ground that where State had exercised its police power in deciding position of traffic control barrier in a manner which was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and owners of abutting property had suitable access to highway after construction of barrier, owners were not entitled to compensation for loss of access. The owners appealed.
In the Court of Appeals the State claimed that the owners were not damaged by the erection of fence and barrier at their property border with the street. The property owners contended that the State's police powers could not be extended to include a de facto appropriation and that the findings of fact based on personal inspection by Court of Claims should be affirmed.
Upon appeal by claimant Tucci: Order affirmed, without costs, on the opinion at the Appellate Division. Appeal by deceased claimant Terenzi dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that a representative has not been substituted for said decedent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dumala v. State
...368, 280 N.Y.S.2d 135, 227 N.E.2d 37 (1967), Tucci v. State, 28 A.D.2d 774, 280 N.Y.S.2d 789 (3rd Dept., 1967), aff'd 29 N.Y.2d 836, 327 N.Y.S.2d 851, 277 N.E.2d 784 (1971). Claimant is entitled only to suitable access, not to access along his property's entire frontage or access to every s......
-
O'Brien v. City of Syracuse
... ... Both the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Article 1, section 7 of the New York State Constitution provide that property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. In Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, 60 S.Ct ... den. 360 U.S. 934, 79 S.Ct. 1453, 3 L.Ed.2d 1546; Jones Beach Blvd. Estate v. Moses, 268 N.Y. 362, 197 N.E. 313; Tucci v. State, 28 A.D.2d 774, 280 N.Y.S.2d 789, affd. 29 N.Y.2d 836, 327 N.Y.S.2d 851, 277 N.E.2d 784; Jablowski v. State, 267 App.Div. 54, 44 N.Y.S.2d ... ...
-
St. Luke's German Evangelical Lutheran Church v. City of Rochester
... ... and social programs to a county-wide congregation and, because it offers the only German language Lutheran services in the western part of the State, it attracts attendance from outside the county as well. Since 1931 St. Luke's has maintained church facilities and a parking lot on the corner ... City of New York, 188 N.Y. 58, 80 N.E. 573; Jones Beach Blvd. Estate v. Moses, 268 N.Y. 362, 197 N.E. 313; Tucci v. State of New York, 28 A.D.2d 774, 280 N.Y.S.2d 789; affd. 29 N.Y.2d 836, 327 N.Y.S.2d 851, 277 N.E.2d 784). And while the question of whether ... ...
-
Raj v. State
... ... New York Cent. and Hudson Riv. R.R. Co., 130 N.Y. 108, 112-113, 29 N.E. 95). This right, however, is neither absolute nor superior to that of the State's to exercise its authority to alter the grade and direction of the highway (Tucci v. State of New York, 28 A.D.2d 774, 280 N.Y.S.2d 789, affd. on opn. below, 29 N.Y.2d 836, 327 N.Y.S.2d 851, 277 N.E.2d 784). As Tucci noted, the fact that abutting landowners may be adversely affected by the State's resort to this power does not alter the result (see, id.). Access, though not ... ...