3240 Sheridan Drive, Inc. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

3240 Sheridan Drive, Inc. v. State

28 A.D.2d 813, 281 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3681

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 29, 1967

DocketClaim No. 43784

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.2d 813 (3240 Sheridan Drive, Inc. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

3240 Sheridan Drive, Inc. v. State, 28 A.D.2d 813, 281 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The theory of consequential damage because of loss of expansion area was not supported by the evidence. A new hearing is required to determine the extent of damages because of elimination of frontal parking and" for interference with and limitation on frontal access. The amount allowed for the direct taking was proper. The State claims that no award should have been made .for the improvements on the frontal property. We disagree and, inasmuch as the amount allowed for improvements was lower than that to which the State’s expert testified, we have no criticism of the allowance. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in action for damages for permanent appropriation.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum: The theory of consequential damage because of loss of expansion area was not supported by the evidence. A new hearing is required to determine the extent of damages because of elimination of frontal parking and" for interference with and limitation on frontal access. The amount allowed for the direct taking was proper. The State claims that no award should have been made .for the improvements on the frontal property. We disagree and, inasmuch as the amount allowed for improvements was lower than that to which the State’s expert testified, we have no criticism of the allowance. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in action for damages for permanent appropriation.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.2d 813, 281 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/3240-sheridan-drive-inc-v-state-nyappdiv-1967.