Cadwallader v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cadwallader v. State

210 A.D.2d 885, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13334

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

DocketClaim No. 84866

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 885 (Cadwallader 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

Cadwallader v. State, 210 A.D.2d 885, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at the Court of Claims (Hanifin, J.). We add only that the argument advanced by the State for the first time on appeal, that the award to claimant should be reduced to approximately $78,000, reflecting a recent sale of the property plus 3% per annum for inflation from the date of sale to the date of appropriation, is not properly before us (see, Lippes v Bradley, 203 AD2d 959; Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984; Charlotte Lake Riv. Assocs. v American Ins. Co., 68 AD2d 151, 154-155). It is well settled that "[a]n appellate court should not, and will not, consider different theories or new questions, if proof might have been offered to refute or overcome them had those theories or questions been presented in the court of first instance” (Fresh Pond Rd. Assocs. v Estate of Schacht, 120 AD2d 561, lv denied 68 NY2d 802; see, Lippes [886]*886v Bradley, supra; Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives v Kellerman, 172 AD2d 307, 308, lv denied 78 NY2d 856). (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, Hanifin, J.—Appropriation.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at the Court of Claims (Hanifin, J.). We add only that the argument advanced by the State for the first time on appeal, that the award to claimant should be reduced to approximately $78,000, reflecting a recent sale of the property plus 3% per annum for inflation from the date of sale to the date of appropriation, is not properly before us (see, Lippes v Bradley, 203 AD2d 959; Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984; Charlotte Lake Riv. Assocs. v American Ins. Co., 68 AD2d 151, 154-155). It is well settled that "[a]n appellate court should not, and will not, consider different theories or new questions, if proof might have been offered to refute or overcome them had those theories or questions been presented in the court of first instance” (Fresh Pond Rd. Assocs. v Estate of Schacht, 120 AD2d 561, lv denied 68 NY2d 802; see, Lippes [886]*886v Bradley, supra; Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives v Kellerman, 172 AD2d 307, 308, lv denied 78 NY2d 856). (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, Hanifin, J.—Appropriation.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 885, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadwallader-v-state-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack