Consolidated Edison Co. v. Port

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Port

53 A.D.2d 623, 384 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13321

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

DecidedJune 7, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 623 (Consolidated Edison Co. v. Port) 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

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Port, 53 A.D.2d 623, 384 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a condemnation proceeding by a public utility, the condemnor appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 26, 1975, which, inter alia, granted respondents’ motion to confirm a report of commissioners of appraisal. Final order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remanded to Special Term for remittal to the same commissioners of appraisal for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In determining fair market value, the commissioners have valued this vacant land as having a potential for subdivision development. In such situations, where the acreage is given an added increment of value, the determiners of the facts must separately state the found acreage value and the added increment found, so that intelligent review is possible (see Matter of County of Suffolk [Firester], 37 NY2d 649). That has not yet been done. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In a condemnation proceeding by a public utility, the condemnor appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 26, 1975, which, inter alia, granted respondents’ motion to confirm a report of commissioners of appraisal. Final order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remanded to Special Term for remittal to the same commissioners of appraisal for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In determining fair market value, the commissioners have valued this vacant land as having a potential for subdivision development. In such situations, where the acreage is given an added increment of value, the determiners of the facts must separately state the found acreage value and the added increment found, so that intelligent review is possible (see Matter of County of Suffolk [Firester], 37 NY2d 649). That has not yet been done. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 623, 384 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-edison-co-v-port-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack