Bender v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bender v. State

27 A.D.2d 792, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4845

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1967

DocketClaim No. 44503

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 792 (Bender 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

Bender v. State, 27 A.D.2d 792, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with the Memorandum, and as modified affirmed, with costs to claimants. New findings made, and inconsistent findings reversed. Memorandum : This was what we might refer to as the “ second taking ”. The first appropriation was in Case No. 45, decided herewith. In our decision in that case we decided that the value of the remaining property after the first appropriation was $4.17 per square foot. The award for this, or the “ second appropriation ” should have been computed on that value and not on a value of $4.50 per square foot. Thus the total amount awarded should have been [793]*793for 1,084 square feet at $4.17 per square foot, totalling $4,520. The award should be reduced to this amount, plus interest. (Appeals from judgment of Court of Claims for claimants on a claim for permanent appropriation.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with the Memorandum, and as modified affirmed, with costs to claimants. New findings made, and inconsistent findings reversed. Memorandum : This was what we might refer to as the “ second taking ”. The first appropriation was in Case No. 45, decided herewith. In our decision in that case we decided that the value of the remaining property after the first appropriation was $4.17 per square foot. The award for this, or the “ second appropriation ” should have been computed on that value and not on a value of $4.50 per square foot. Thus the total amount awarded should have been [793]*793for 1,084 square feet at $4.17 per square foot, totalling $4,520. The award should be reduced to this amount, plus interest. (Appeals from judgment of Court of Claims for claimants on a claim for permanent appropriation.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 792, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bender-v-state-nyappdiv-1967.