Anthony Celeste Et Al. v. State New York

In its opinion the court stated: ""In placing a value on this property the Court has taken into consideration comparable sales, the awards made by the Court for other properties in the vicinity, the knowledge gained by hearing other claims and by viewing the property."" Appellant contends that it was prejudicial error for the court to consider ""the awards made by the Court for other properties in the vicinity"". While this is really the same thing as saying the court in drawing upon its general knowledge and experience in arriving at a decision, we agree that it was technically erroneous to consider other awards. Other awards were not the result of a voluntary sale, were based on a different record, and were without the benefit of cross-examination by these parties. However, where the record sustains the decision and judgment, the fact that the court gives a wrong reason, as one of the reasons for its decision, is not fatal and does not mandate a reversal. Upon this record we think the error was harmless. The only other contention is that the award is excessive. Claimants owned approximately 11 acres of land on the north side of Route 17C between Owego and Binghamton, N. Y. Concededly its highest and best use was for industrial