City of Batavia v. Leo J. Bolas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of Batavia v. Leo J. Bolas

174 A.D.2d 993, 573 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8910

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 993 (City of Batavia v. Leo J. Bolas) 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

City of Batavia v. Leo J. Bolas, 174 A.D.2d 993, 573 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The trial court properly determined that the measure of damages in this partial taking case was "the difference between the value of the whole before the taking and the value of the remainder after the taking” (Diocese of Buffalo v State of New York, 24 NY2d 320, 323). We affirm the trial court’s award inasmuch as it is within the range of the conflicting expert opinion testimony and is not affected by legal error (see, Matter of Village of Hilton v Edelman, 83 AD2d 767; City of Buffalo v Goldman, 63 AD2d 828, 829). The city’s appraisal complied with the requirements established by the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR part 202) and was not based upon the method of valuation held to be invalid by the Court of Appeals in Latham Holding Co. v State of New York (16 NY2d 41). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Graney, J.—Condemnation.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The trial court properly determined that the measure of damages in this partial taking case was "the difference between the value of the whole before the taking and the value of the remainder after the taking” (Diocese of Buffalo v State of New York, 24 NY2d 320, 323). We affirm the trial court’s award inasmuch as it is within the range of the conflicting expert opinion testimony and is not affected by legal error (see, Matter of Village of Hilton v Edelman, 83 AD2d 767; City of Buffalo v Goldman, 63 AD2d 828, 829). The city’s appraisal complied with the requirements established by the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR part 202) and was not based upon the method of valuation held to be invalid by the Court of Appeals in Latham Holding Co. v State of New York (16 NY2d 41). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Graney, J.—Condemnation.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 993, 573 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-batavia-v-leo-j-bolas-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack