Baldwin-Hall Co. v. State

New York Court of Appeals

Baldwin-Hall Co. v. State

17 N.Y.2d 661

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1966

DocketClaim No. 35692

StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.Y.2d 661 (Baldwin-Hall Co. 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. v. State, 17 N.Y.2d 661 (N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the rights of appellant under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. Appellant contends that by changing the grade of street level abutting its business property the State effected a taking of its property and that the failure to compensate it therefor constituted a denial of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court of Appeals considered this contention and held that there was no denial of appellant’s constitutional rights. [See 16 N Y 2d 1005.]

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

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the rights of appellant under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. Appellant contends that by changing the grade of street level abutting its business property the State effected a taking of its property and that the failure to compensate it therefor constituted a denial of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court of Appeals considered this contention and held that there was no denial of appellant’s constitutional rights. [See 16 N Y 2d 1005.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.Y.2d 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-hall-co-v-state-ny-1966.