Board of Supervisors v. Wiedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Supervisors v. Wiedman

260 A.D. 839, 22 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4888

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.D. 839 (Board of Supervisors v. Wiedman) 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

Board of Supervisors v. Wiedman, 260 A.D. 839, 22 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: This is one of four condemnation cases tried together. Our opinion in the companion case of Board of Supervisors, Monroe County, v. Wilkin (ante, p. 366), decided herewith, sufficiently explains the background. In the instant ease, as in the Wilkin case, the principal question is whether or not land lying between the land taken and Lake Ontario is left to the owner without access to the highway. In this ease, too, the commissioners made alternative awards ($4,253 or $9,003), depending on the court’s decision as to highway access. Plaintiff moved for confirmation of the smaller award and the defendants moved for confirmation of the larger award. The Special Term confirmed the larger award. On the question of access to the highway of land not taken by the county, the only difference between this and the Wilkin ease, lies in the fact that a legend is printed on the Tennison Acquisition Map as follows: “ 30' sub-div. access on north.” We have pointed out, in our opinion in the Wilkin case, why, in view of the testimony of the county’s witness Dake, we think the quoted legend does not have the effect, claimed for it, of giving access to the highway. All concur. (The order confirms the report of commissioners of appraisal in a condemnation proceeding under article 2 of the Condemnation Law to condemn property for highway purposes.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: This is one of four condemnation cases tried together. Our opinion in the companion case of Board of Supervisors, Monroe County, v. Wilkin (ante, p. 366), decided herewith, sufficiently explains the background. In the instant ease, as in the Wilkin case, the principal question is whether or not land lying between the land taken and Lake Ontario is left to the owner without access to the highway. In this ease, too, the commissioners made alternative awards ($4,253 or $9,003), depending on the court’s decision as to highway access. Plaintiff moved for confirmation of the smaller award and the defendants moved for confirmation of the larger award. The Special Term confirmed the larger award. On the question of access to the highway of land not taken by the county, the only difference between this and the Wilkin ease, lies in the fact that a legend is printed on the Tennison Acquisition Map as follows: “ 30' sub-div. access on north.” We have pointed out, in our opinion in the Wilkin case, why, in view of the testimony of the county’s witness Dake, we think the quoted legend does not have the effect, claimed for it, of giving access to the highway. All concur. (The order confirms the report of commissioners of appraisal in a condemnation proceeding under article 2 of the Condemnation Law to condemn property for highway purposes.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 839, 22 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-supervisors-v-wiedman-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack