Belinky v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Belinky v. State

24 A.D.2d 908, 264 N.Y.S.2d 401

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1965

DocketClaim No. 42878

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 908 (Belinky 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

Belinky v. State, 24 A.D.2d 908, 264 N.Y.S.2d 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims in an appropriation case, the appeal being limited to the award for machinery and equipment used in connection with the corporate claimant’s laundry business conducted upon premises leased to it by the individual claimant, who had a separate award for the realty taken. The machines and equipment, with the exception of a flatwork ironer, were, for the most part, rebuilt machines, of standard makes, some of which had been removed to this location from another laundry; and although they were bolted to the floor and connected to the electrical and water systems, they were removable, and were, in fact, removed by the tenant, without material injury to the machines or to the freehold, so far as the record discloses. With the exception noted, these items were personalty and not fixtures, under the authorities. (See, e.g., Matter of City of New York [Whitlock Ave.], 278 N. Y. 276, 283, mot. for rearg. den. 278 N. Y. 714.) The flatwork ironer, however, was a fixture for which claimant was entitled to be compensated. (Marraro v. State of New York, 12 N Y 2d 285, 291.) We find that its value was $6,750. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by reducing the award to $6,750 and appropriate interest and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims in an appropriation case, the appeal being limited to the award for machinery and equipment used in connection with the corporate claimant’s laundry business conducted upon premises leased to it by the individual claimant, who had a separate award for the realty taken. The machines and equipment, with the exception of a flatwork ironer, were, for the most part, rebuilt machines, of standard makes, some of which had been removed to this location from another laundry; and although they were bolted to the floor and connected to the electrical and water systems, they were removable, and were, in fact, removed by the tenant, without material injury to the machines or to the freehold, so far as the record discloses. With the exception noted, these items were personalty and not fixtures, under the authorities. (See, e.g., Matter of City of New York [Whitlock Ave.], 278 N. Y. 276, 283, mot. for rearg. den. 278 N. Y. 714.) The flatwork ironer, however, was a fixture for which claimant was entitled to be compensated. (Marraro v. State of New York, 12 N Y 2d 285, 291.) We find that its value was $6,750. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by reducing the award to $6,750 and appropriate interest and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 908, 264 N.Y.S.2d 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belinky-v-state-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack