BALDWIN-HALL CO., INC. v. State

New York Court of Appeals

BALDWIN-HALL CO., INC. v. State

212 N.E.2d 899, 16 N.Y.2d 1005, 265 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1004

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 1965

DocketClaim 35692

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 N.E.2d 899 (BALDWIN-HALL CO., INC. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BALDWIN-HALL CO., INC. v. State, 212 N.E.2d 899, 16 N.Y.2d 1005, 265 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1004 (N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

Opinions

Memorandum : The order should he affirmed, without costs, on the memorandum at the Appellate Division. We make this further comment: the market value of claimant’s property was probably diminished after and because of the public improvement which involved a change of grade of Oswego Boulevard on which street claimant’s property fronted before any of the changes were made. However, as explained in Selig v. State of New York (10 N Y 2d 34), such damages although in a sense resulting from a change of grade are not compensable when there has been no taking of any part of the subject property and no direct physical damage thereto from any change of grade of any street. In this instance the street on which the building formerly fronted was moved to a new location some distance away, and depressed, but the building still abutted at one side on another usable street. Such damage as claimant suffered was due to circuity of access and as held in Selig there is no provision in law for recovery thereof.

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

Memorandum : The order should he affirmed, without costs, on the memorandum at the Appellate Division. We make this further comment: the market value of claimant’s property was probably diminished after and because of the public improvement which involved a change of grade of Oswego Boulevard on which street claimant’s property fronted before any of the changes were made. However, as explained in Selig v. State of New York (10 N Y 2d 34), such damages although in a sense resulting from a change of grade are not compensable when there has been no taking of any part of the subject property and no direct physical damage thereto from any change of grade of any street. In this instance the street on which the building formerly fronted was moved to a new location some distance away, and depressed, but the building still abutted at one side on another usable street. Such damage as claimant suffered was due to circuity of access and as held in Selig there is no provision in law for recovery thereof.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 N.E.2d 899, 16 N.Y.2d 1005, 265 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-hall-co-inc-v-state-ny-1965.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack