Festino v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Festino v. State

40 A.D.2d 915, 337 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3353

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1972

DocketClaim No. 52996

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 915 (Festino v. State) 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

Festino v. State, 40 A.D.2d 915, 337 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding the appellant $3,159 in damages for the appropriation of 2.357 acres of his land for highway expansion located adjacent to Route 5 at the intersection of Washout Road in the Town of Glenville, Schenectady County. We find present here no more than a question as to the efficacy of expert testimony as to the value of the instant property and no basis on the present record to disturb the trial court’s determination. The trial court could clearly reject the testimony of appellant’s expert as not properly based (Matter of Huie [City of New York-Allen], 1 A D 2d 500; Orleans County Quarry Co. v. State of New York, 172 App. Div. 863) and instead accept that of the State’s expert. Duksa v. State of New York (34 A D 2d 1053) is not controlling here. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Simons, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding the appellant $3,159 in damages for the appropriation of 2.357 acres of his land for highway expansion located adjacent to Route 5 at the intersection of Washout Road in the Town of Glenville, Schenectady County. We find present here no more than a question as to the efficacy of expert testimony as to the value of the instant property and no basis on the present record to disturb the trial court’s determination. The trial court could clearly reject the testimony of appellant’s expert as not properly based (Matter of Huie [City of New York-Allen], 1 A D 2d 500; Orleans County Quarry Co. v. State of New York, 172 App. Div. 863) and instead accept that of the State’s expert. Duksa v. State of New York (34 A D 2d 1053) is not controlling here. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Simons, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 915, 337 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/festino-v-state-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack