A. E. Ottaviano v. State New York A. E. Ottaviano v. State New York

A. E. Ottaviano v. State New York

NY.43492; 273 N.Y.S.2d 789; 26 A.D.2d 844 (1966)

    • CHF 1.00
    • CHF 1.00

Beschreibung des Verlags

Appeal and cross appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding claimant $12,000 plus interest as direct damages for the taking of a portion of a parcel of land located in Croton-on-Hudson. The property taken was a triangularly shaped portion of about .09 acre from an irregularly shaped parcel of about 4 acres. The land, zoned for commercial use, was vacant and unimproved. The Court of Claims found a before value of $74,500 and an after value of $62,500 for damages of $12,000 for the direct taking. It refused any award for consequential damages. The State contends that since the triangular portion taken has an average depth of only 32 feet, ranging from 0 to 80 feet, the front-foot valuation of $200 per foot advanced by the claimant and specifically accepted by the Court of Claims is excessive. It does not appear clearly how the Court of Claims reached the award rendered. However, it is apparent that despite the fact that it stated it accepted the $200-per-foot valuation, the Court of Claims could not have in fact utilized such a figure and arrived at the award here involved. Rather it would appear that, since the court specifically states that it used the front-foot method, a valuation of roughly $98 per front foot must actually have been employed. Such a figure is well within the range of the testimony and accordingly the award must be sustained. We find beyond this nothing present here but the usual diversity of expert opinion on the question of valuation. The claimant urges that it is entitled to an award of consequential damages on the theory that severance damages were sustained by a unified parcel. It is clear, however, that any consequential damages if in fact sustained were due to more circuitous access, and an award on this reasoning was properly denied (Selig v. State of New York, 10 N.Y.2d 34; Dennis v. State of New York, 25 A.D.2d 925; Blair v. State of New York, 19 A.D.2d 937, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 700; Nettleton Co. v. State of New York, 11 A.D.2d 899). Disposition Judgment affirmed, without costs.

GENRE
Gewerbe und Technik
ERSCHIENEN
1966
20. Oktober
SPRACHE
EN
Englisch
UMFANG
1
Seite
VERLAG
LawApp Publishers
GRÖSSE
62.4
 kB

Mehr Bücher von Supreme Court of New York

Matter Emily F. Ramos v. Department Mental Hygiene State New York Et Al. Matter Emily F. Ramos v. Department Mental Hygiene State New York Et Al.
1970
Hwesu S. Murray Hwesu S. Murray
1991
Bsl Development Corp. Bsl Development Corp.
1991
Matter West Branch Conservation Association v. Planning Board Matter West Branch Conservation Association v. Planning Board
1991
Alberta Horton Et Al. v. City Schenectady Alberta Horton Et Al. v. City Schenectady
1991
Joyce Schumacher Et Al. v. Lutheran Community Services Joyce Schumacher Et Al. v. Lutheran Community Services
1991