Gabriel v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gabriel v. State

26 A.D.2d 735, 272 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3561

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1966

DocketClaim No. 39572; Claim No. 39573

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 735 (Gabriel 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

Gabriel v. State, 26 A.D.2d 735, 272 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J. P.

Appeal by the State from a judgment and award of the Court of Claims in [736]*736claim No. 39573 of $55,200 and in claim No. 39572 of $35,700 in favor of claimants for direct and consequential damages resulting from a highway appropriation by the State. With respect to claim No. 39573, the entire parcel was taken and the award was based on $200 per front foot for a front footage of 276 feet, amounting to $55,200. The State argues that there was no basis for such an award, but the front-foot value adopted by the trial court is within the range of the claimants’ proof and accordingly should be affirmed. With respect to claim No. 39572, we find that the award is within the range of the values testified to by the claimants’ appraiser as -to before and after values. That the testimony of the claimants’ appraiser is at one point apparently contradictory, as contended here by the appellant, does not prevent the court from considering the valuation of the appraiser in arriving at a decision and award since the figures accepted are supported by the record. Judgments affirmed, with costs. Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Herlihy, J. P.

Appeal by the State from a judgment and award of the Court of Claims in [736]*736claim No. 39573 of $55,200 and in claim No. 39572 of $35,700 in favor of claimants for direct and consequential damages resulting from a highway appropriation by the State. With respect to claim No. 39573, the entire parcel was taken and the award was based on $200 per front foot for a front footage of 276 feet, amounting to $55,200. The State argues that there was no basis for such an award, but the front-foot value adopted by the trial court is within the range of the claimants’ proof and accordingly should be affirmed. With respect to claim No. 39572, we find that the award is within the range of the values testified to by the claimants’ appraiser as -to before and after values. That the testimony of the claimants’ appraiser is at one point apparently contradictory, as contended here by the appellant, does not prevent the court from considering the valuation of the appraiser in arriving at a decision and award since the figures accepted are supported by the record. Judgments affirmed, with costs. Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 735, 272 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gabriel-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.