Conklin v. State

New York Court of Appeals

Conklin v. State

343 N.E.2d 755, 38 N.Y.2d 726, 381 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2316

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 1975

DocketClaim 51655

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 343 N.E.2d 755 (Conklin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conklin v. State, 343 N.E.2d 755, 38 N.Y.2d 726, 381 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2316 (N.Y. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Generally, a lessee is entitled to recover the value of fixtures placed by him on the condemned property, when he is entitled to remove them at the expiration of the lease (Marraro v State of New York, 12 NY2d 285). On the record before us, we cannot conclude that claimant has met his burden of establishing his ownership of the fixtures at the date of the appropriation and the liability of the State to him. The record reveals that the fixtures were not on the condemned property at the time of the appropriation and, hence, there is no proof of a taking by the State.

The scope of our review here is limited to the determination that there is evidence in the record supporting the finding by the Appellate Division that claimant failed to establish his ownership of the property. (See Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], § 108, p 452.) Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Memorandum. Generally, a lessee is entitled to recover the value of fixtures placed by him on the condemned property, when he is entitled to remove them at the expiration of the lease (Marraro v State of New York, 12 NY2d 285). On the record before us, we cannot conclude that claimant has met his burden of establishing his ownership of the fixtures at the date of the appropriation and the liability of the State to him. The record reveals that the fixtures were not on the condemned property at the time of the appropriation and, hence, there is no proof of a taking by the State.

The scope of our review here is limited to the determination that there is evidence in the record supporting the finding by the Appellate Division that claimant failed to establish his ownership of the property. (See Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], § 108, p 452.) Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 N.E.2d 755, 38 N.Y.2d 726, 381 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conklin-v-state-ny-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack