Glennon v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glennon v. State

40 A.D.2d 1072, 339 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3120

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1972

DocketClaim No. 50742

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 1072 (Glennon 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

Glennon v. State, 40 A.D.2d 1072, 339 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We affirm the award made by the trial court of $24,840 for 4.1 acres of unimproved land in the Town of Chili zoned residential E which was totally appropriated by the State. We note, however, that the trial, court’s valuation of $3,000 per acre made upon claimant’s comparables, all of which had an enhanced value due to an imminent zoning change not properly applicable to land zoned residential E was error (Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.], 1 N Y 2d 428, 433). and it was also error to increase this figure by 100% because of the possibility of securing a zoning change to permit multiple residences without offering any explanation or reason for this percentage enhancement. Such increment ascribed to a reasonable probability of a zoning change must have a basis in the evidence (South Path Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 35 A D 2d 896). We conclude, however, that claimant’s comparables indicate an adjusted price per acre of $8,000, reflecting the valve of residential land enhanced by the possibility of a zoning change, provided sufficient proof to support the trial court’s award. Such comparables are proper so long as they are adjusted to “ reflect a diminished figure for the fact that the rezoning has not actually been accomplished ” (Yochmowitz v. State of New York, 25 A D 2d 930, mot. for lv. to app. den. 18 N Y 2d 579). Thus, while the probability of an imminent zoning change may be considered in valuing the property, it “ necessarily requires a discount from full commercial value” (Dennis v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 924, 925; Masten v. State of New York, 11 A D 2d 370, affd. 9 N Y 2d 796). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in claim for damages for permanent appropriation.) Present — Marsh, J. P., Moule, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We affirm the award made by the trial court of $24,840 for 4.1 acres of unimproved land in the Town of Chili zoned residential E which was totally appropriated by the State. We note, however, that the trial, court’s valuation of $3,000 per acre made upon claimant’s comparables, all of which had an enhanced value due to an imminent zoning change not properly applicable to land zoned residential E was error (Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.], 1 N Y 2d 428, 433). and it was also error to increase this figure by 100% because of the possibility of securing a zoning change to permit multiple residences without offering any explanation or reason for this percentage enhancement. Such increment ascribed to a reasonable probability of a zoning change must have a basis in the evidence (South Path Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 35 A D 2d 896). We conclude, however, that claimant’s comparables indicate an adjusted price per acre of $8,000, reflecting the valve of residential land enhanced by the possibility of a zoning change, provided sufficient proof to support the trial court’s award. Such comparables are proper so long as they are adjusted to “ reflect a diminished figure for the fact that the rezoning has not actually been accomplished ” (Yochmowitz v. State of New York, 25 A D 2d 930, mot. for lv. to app. den. 18 N Y 2d 579). Thus, while the probability of an imminent zoning change may be considered in valuing the property, it “ necessarily requires a discount from full commercial value” (Dennis v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 924, 925; Masten v. State of New York, 11 A D 2d 370, affd. 9 N Y 2d 796). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in claim for damages for permanent appropriation.) Present — Marsh, J. P., Moule, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 1072, 339 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glennon-v-state-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack