Baumler v. Town of Newstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baumler v. Town of Newstead

275 A.D.2d 890, 714 N.Y.S.2d 924

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 890 (Baumler v. Town of Newstead) 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

Baumler v. Town of Newstead, 275 A.D.2d 890, 714 N.Y.S.2d 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest to plaintiffs on the jury award of damages for the loss of use and enjoyment of plaintiffs’ property and the diminution of the value of plaintiffs’ property resulting from defendant’s clearing of the channel of Dorsch Creek (see, CPLR 5001 [a]). We also reject defendant’s contentions that the court erred in setting May 24, 1988 as the date from which interest is to be computed (see, CPLR 5001 [b]; Baumler v Town of Newstead, 198 AD2d 777) and abused its discretion in awarding interest at the rate of 7% (see generally, Rodriguez u New York City Hous. Auth., 91 NY2d 76, 80-81). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J. — Interest.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest to plaintiffs on the jury award of damages for the loss of use and enjoyment of plaintiffs’ property and the diminution of the value of plaintiffs’ property resulting from defendant’s clearing of the channel of Dorsch Creek (see, CPLR 5001 [a]). We also reject defendant’s contentions that the court erred in setting May 24, 1988 as the date from which interest is to be computed (see, CPLR 5001 [b]; Baumler v Town of Newstead, 198 AD2d 777) and abused its discretion in awarding interest at the rate of 7% (see generally, Rodriguez u New York City Hous. Auth., 91 NY2d 76, 80-81). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J. — Interest.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 890, 714 N.Y.S.2d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baumler-v-town-of-newstead-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack