Bartle v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bartle v. State

51 A.D.2d 1080, 381 N.Y.S.2d 144

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1976

DocketClaim No. 54339

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1080 (Bartle 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

Bartle v. State, 51 A.D.2d 1080, 381 N.Y.S.2d 144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered July 9, 1975, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause of action. The Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim since there was no taking of claimant’s property either actual or de facto (City of Buffalo v Clement Co., 28 NY2d 241; Fisher v City of Syracuse, 46 AD2d 216). There is present no assertion of physical invasion or direct legal restraint by the State of the property’s use, and thus claimant is not entitled to be compensated for damages. Claimant’s allegation that she was informed by an employee of the Department of Transportation to remove her tenants would not constitute such a direct legal restraint. We find no merit in any additional grounds for reversal urged by the claimant. Order affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered July 9, 1975, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause of action. The Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim since there was no taking of claimant’s property either actual or de facto (City of Buffalo v Clement Co., 28 NY2d 241; Fisher v City of Syracuse, 46 AD2d 216). There is present no assertion of physical invasion or direct legal restraint by the State of the property’s use, and thus claimant is not entitled to be compensated for damages. Claimant’s allegation that she was informed by an employee of the Department of Transportation to remove her tenants would not constitute such a direct legal restraint. We find no merit in any additional grounds for reversal urged by the claimant. Order affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1080, 381 N.Y.S.2d 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartle-v-state-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack