Blair v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blair v. State

19 A.D.2d 937, 244 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2893

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1963

DocketClaim No. 38538

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 937 (Blair 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

Blair v. State, 19 A.D.2d 937, 244 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

—Cross appeal from a judgment entered on a decision rendered after trial in the Court of Claims. A substantial part of the award of $8,000 made in favor of the claimants by the Court of Claims in connection with this appropriation claim is for indirect damages. The question of land taken was very small, .006 of one acre. The claimants’ proof of value of the land taken with $1,500. State’s proof of value was $100. The part of the award for indirect damage, which is not segregated in the decision, therefore, was at least $6,500. We are of opinion an award for indirect damage is not warranted on this record. There was no change in grade in access to claimants’ property effected by the public improvement. Damages resulting from circuity of access are not recoverable. (Selig v. State of New York, 10 H Y 2d 34.) Hor are the damages recoverable based on a difference in the view from the premises caused by the rearrangement in the nearby terrain in carrying out the public improvement. Judgment modified on the law and the facts by reducing the amount awarded to $1,500; and as thus modified, affirmed, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

—Cross appeal from a judgment entered on a decision rendered after trial in the Court of Claims. A substantial part of the award of $8,000 made in favor of the claimants by the Court of Claims in connection with this appropriation claim is for indirect damages. The question of land taken was very small, .006 of one acre. The claimants’ proof of value of the land taken with $1,500. State’s proof of value was $100. The part of the award for indirect damage, which is not segregated in the decision, therefore, was at least $6,500. We are of opinion an award for indirect damage is not warranted on this record. There was no change in grade in access to claimants’ property effected by the public improvement. Damages resulting from circuity of access are not recoverable. (Selig v. State of New York, 10 H Y 2d 34.) Hor are the damages recoverable based on a difference in the view from the premises caused by the rearrangement in the nearby terrain in carrying out the public improvement. Judgment modified on the law and the facts by reducing the amount awarded to $1,500; and as thus modified, affirmed, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 937, 244 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blair-v-state-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack