Home/New York Court of Appeals/Donaloio v. State

Donaloio v. State

476 N.E.2d 323, 64 N.Y.2d 811, 486 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17604
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 5, 1985
DocketClaim 61773
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 476 N.E.2d 323 (Donaloio 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
Donaloio v. State, 476 N.E.2d 323, 64 N.Y.2d 811, 486 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17604 (N.Y. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

At issue in this case is the amount owing to claimants for the appropriation on October 12,1977 of a sewage flow easement on property adjacent to their restaurant. Both lower courts agreed on the value of the property before the taking, but disagreed on the measurement of damages. The trial court found the highest and best use of the property unchanged by the appropriation, accepting the State’s evidence and representations at trial during 1980 that a cure involving a system of piping the sewage off-premises was feasible. The trial court awarded claimants the cost to cure, as well as other direct and consequential damages, whereas the Appellate Division, in arriving at the fair market value of claimants’ property after the taking, rejected the proffered cure because it required governmental permits and the use of land outside the subject property.

The only potentially feasible alternative method demonstrated at trial for claimants to dispose of the sewage generated by their restaurant required governmental approval or the use of certain State facilities not previously committed, to this purpose. Representations at trial, years after the appropriation, that the necessary authorizations would be forthcoming upon application by claimants do not satisfy the requirement — if the proposed cure is to effect a mitigation of damages — for timely, unequivocal assurance by the State, the condemnor, that this alternative would be implemented (see, Wolfe v State of New York, 22 NY2d 292; see also, Pollak v State of New York, 41 NY2d 909). Accordingly, we adopt as more closely comporting *813 with the weight of the evidence both the Appellate Division’s findings that the highest and best use of the property after the taking was for apartments and a possible craft shop, and its calculation of damages.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

In re the Acquisition of Easements by Central New York Oil & Gas Co.
106 A.D.3d 1152 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
New York Central Lines, LLC v. State
101 A.D.3d 966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Gilbert v. State
25 Misc. 3d 552 (New York State Court of Claims, 2009)
Webster v. Ragona
51 A.D.3d 1128 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
R-GOSHEN LLC v. Village of Goshen
289 F. Supp. 2d 441 (S.D. New York, 2003)
Fodera Enterprises v. State
275 A.D.2d 85 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
County of Suffolk v. Kalimnios
275 A.D.2d 455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
North Colonie Central School District v. State
257 A.D.2d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Faulkner v. State
247 A.D.2d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Acquisition of Real Property by Schenectady
194 A.D.2d 1004 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Van Valkenburgh v. State
131 A.D.2d 903 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Donaloio v. State
115 A.D.2d 134 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Akey v. State
108 A.D.2d 963 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
476 N.E.2d 323, 64 N.Y.2d 811, 486 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donaloio-v-state-ny-1985.