A. C. Crossley & Sons, Inc. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A. C. Crossley & Sons, Inc. v. State

25 A.D.2d 708, 268 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4644

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1966

DocketClaim No. 41339

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 708 (A. C. Crossley & Sons, 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

A. C. Crossley & Sons, Inc. v. State, 25 A.D.2d 708, 268 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims entered on November 24, 1964, which awarded [709]*709claimant $4,967 for land appropriated and $31,220 for consequential damages. The appellant for the first time raises two questions: (1) May the State appropriate property under the doctrine of substitute condemnation, and (2) may the State unilaterally agree to acquire a right of way and build a road for the purpose of minimizing or avoiding consequential damages? Since these issues were not raised in the trial court, they may not be raised here for the first time, and, a fortiori, the State may not seek to arrange any substitute condemnation at the appellate level for the first time. Guptill Molding Corp. v. State of New York (20 A D 2d 832) is clearly distinguishable and reliance thereon is misplaced. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims entered on November 24, 1964, which awarded [709]*709claimant $4,967 for land appropriated and $31,220 for consequential damages. The appellant for the first time raises two questions: (1) May the State appropriate property under the doctrine of substitute condemnation, and (2) may the State unilaterally agree to acquire a right of way and build a road for the purpose of minimizing or avoiding consequential damages? Since these issues were not raised in the trial court, they may not be raised here for the first time, and, a fortiori, the State may not seek to arrange any substitute condemnation at the appellate level for the first time. Guptill Molding Corp. v. State of New York (20 A D 2d 832) is clearly distinguishable and reliance thereon is misplaced. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 708, 268 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-c-crossley-sons-inc-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.