B & B Food Corp. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

B & B Food Corp. v. State

96 A.D.2d 893, 466 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19498

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

DecidedAugust 22, 1983

DocketClaim No. 63080

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 96 A.D.2d 893 (B & B Food Corp. 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

B & B Food Corp. v. State, 96 A.D.2d 893, 466 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the State of New York from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), dated June 15,1982, which, after a nonjury trial, was in favor of the claimant in the principal sum of $204,700. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Court of Claims was correct in refusing to limit damages, as proposed by the State, based upon the claimant’s failure to [894]*894accept a deed to a parcel of land contiguous to the subject property, which deed was offered to the claimant by the State subsequent to the appropriation of its property. A claimant’s right to compensation for property appropriated is to be measured and fixed as of the time of taking (see Wolfe v State of New York, 22 NY2d 292). Furthermore, the “cost to cure” theory of damages proffered by the State may not be used to mitigate consequential damages where the cure must be accomplished by going outside the tract in controversy (see Matter of County of Suffolk [Arved, Inc.], 63 AD2d 673; Gluckman v State of New York, 37 AD2d 870; St. Patrick’s Church v State of New York, 30 AD2d 473). Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to full damages as determined by the Court of Claims. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the State of New York from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), dated June 15,1982, which, after a nonjury trial, was in favor of the claimant in the principal sum of $204,700. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Court of Claims was correct in refusing to limit damages, as proposed by the State, based upon the claimant’s failure to [894]*894accept a deed to a parcel of land contiguous to the subject property, which deed was offered to the claimant by the State subsequent to the appropriation of its property. A claimant’s right to compensation for property appropriated is to be measured and fixed as of the time of taking (see Wolfe v State of New York, 22 NY2d 292). Furthermore, the “cost to cure” theory of damages proffered by the State may not be used to mitigate consequential damages where the cure must be accomplished by going outside the tract in controversy (see Matter of County of Suffolk [Arved, Inc.], 63 AD2d 673; Gluckman v State of New York, 37 AD2d 870; St. Patrick’s Church v State of New York, 30 AD2d 473). Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to full damages as determined by the Court of Claims. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 893, 466 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-b-food-corp-v-state-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack