A. E. Nettleton Company v. State New York

Memorandum: Although it is difficult so to ascertain from the findings, it appears that the Trial Judge awarded a large amount for consequential damages to the property. In arriving at this determination, it is apparent that he was persuaded by the claimant's contentions that consequential damages resulted because the property no longer fronted on a main boulevard; that there was no immediate access to the property from the boulevard which carried a heavy flow of traffic; and that the lowering of the grade of the boulevard affected the view of the property by users of the boulevard. He found that the claimant did not have suitable access to the re-established boulevard and apparently completely overlooked the fact that there was access from a service road, a part of the boulevard system, and complete access from N. Clinton St. which is the boundary of the property at the rear. There is no evidence from which the court could find that there was a complete destruction of access or a failure of suitable access to the property and in the absence thereof, there could be no recovery for consequential damages based on this phase of the claim. ""The State is not required to respond in damages because claimant's property does not have direct access to Le Moyne Avenue as reconstructed or is not on a through street."" (Meloon Bronze Foundry v. State of New York, 10 A.D.2d 905, 906.) (See, also, Esso Standard Oil Co. v. State of New York, 9 A.D.2d 840; Crear v. State of New York, 2 A.D.2d 735; Holmes v. State of New York,