Cicci v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cicci v. State

31 A.D.2d 733, 297 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2730

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1968

DocketClaim No. 45175

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 733 (Cicci 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

Cicci v. State, 31 A.D.2d 733, 297 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with the Memorandum herein, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The Court of Claims found that there was a de facto appropriation of claimant’s premises on May 1, 1964 because of the cancellation on that date of a driveway permit previously issued, and permitted interest to run on the entire award from that date. The mere cancellation of a driveway permit even when acknowledged by statements that such was necessary [734]*734because of an impending appropriation cannot be taken as an assertion .of title to claimant’s lands by the State. There was no entry upon claimant’s lands and no ousting of claimant from possession prior to the date of filing of the appropriation map on February 3, 1965, and interest on the award should run from that date. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in action for damages for permanent appropriation.) Present—Goldman, J. P., Del Vecchio, Marsh, Witmer and Henry, 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 herein, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The Court of Claims found that there was a de facto appropriation of claimant’s premises on May 1, 1964 because of the cancellation on that date of a driveway permit previously issued, and permitted interest to run on the entire award from that date. The mere cancellation of a driveway permit even when acknowledged by statements that such was necessary [734]*734because of an impending appropriation cannot be taken as an assertion .of title to claimant’s lands by the State. There was no entry upon claimant’s lands and no ousting of claimant from possession prior to the date of filing of the appropriation map on February 3, 1965, and interest on the award should run from that date. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in action for damages for permanent appropriation.) Present—Goldman, J. P., Del Vecchio, Marsh, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 733, 297 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cicci-v-state-nyappdiv-1968.