City of Dunkirk v. Conti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of Dunkirk v. Conti

186 A.D.2d 1012

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1012 (City of Dunkirk v. Conti) 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 Dunkirk v. Conti, 186 A.D.2d 1012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the condemnees’ argument that the condemnor’s appraisal was so deficient that it should have been stricken in its entirety. Although the court recognized the inadequacy of the cost approach in the appraisal, it did not rely upon the cost approach in determining the value of the properties.

The court properly declined to award damages for loss of good will and profits of the Griswold business (see, 51 NY Jur 2d, Eminent Domain, § 215).

The court did not err in refusing to permit the witness Telesco to testify that, in his opinion, the highest and best use of the Conti property was for a marina. Telesco’s appraisal had been withdrawn and both Conti’s new appraiser as well as the appraiser for the condemnor based their appraisals on the present use of the property.

Because the court’s valuations of the properties fall within the range of the expert testimony, the judgment is affirmed. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Adams, J. — Condemnation.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the condemnees’ argument that the condemnor’s appraisal was so deficient that it should have been stricken in its entirety. Although the court recognized the inadequacy of the cost approach in the appraisal, it did not rely upon the cost approach in determining the value of the properties.

The court properly declined to award damages for loss of good will and profits of the Griswold business (see, 51 NY Jur 2d, Eminent Domain, § 215).

The court did not err in refusing to permit the witness Telesco to testify that, in his opinion, the highest and best use of the Conti property was for a marina. Telesco’s appraisal had been withdrawn and both Conti’s new appraiser as well as the appraiser for the condemnor based their appraisals on the present use of the property.

Because the court’s valuations of the properties fall within the range of the expert testimony, the judgment is affirmed. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Adams, J. — Condemnation.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-dunkirk-v-conti-nyappdiv-1992.