Gold Cup Farms, Inc. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gold Cup Farms, Inc. v. State

26 A.D.2d 770, 272 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3792

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1966

DocketClaim No. 41217

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 770 (Gold Cup Farms, Inc. 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

Gold Cup Farms, Inc. v. State, 26 A.D.2d 770, 272 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a -new trial granted, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: This case was tried together with Sauquoit Val. Dairy Co. v. State of New York (26 A D 2d 770) decided herewith. The Trial Judge relied, at least to some extent, upon the testimony of a so-called real estate expert for the claimant. His testimony, however, was confused, uncertain and not founded or based upon any of the generally accepted applicable standards. (We agree with the general philosophy on this subject expressed in the dissenting Opinion in Wagner v. State of New York, 25 A D 2d 814.) He attempted to use comparable sales which were not in fact comparable, and he displayed a woeful lack of knowledge of the transactions upon which the so-called com-parables were founded. Apparently he had before him, as did the Trial Judge, a written report which was never received in evidence nor marked for identification, is not a part of the record, but to which nevertheless he referred constantly. As we do not have this report before ms, the references to it are meaningless. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims for claimant on a claim for permanent appropriation of realty.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a -new trial granted, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: This case was tried together with Sauquoit Val. Dairy Co. v. State of New York (26 A D 2d 770) decided herewith. The Trial Judge relied, at least to some extent, upon the testimony of a so-called real estate expert for the claimant. His testimony, however, was confused, uncertain and not founded or based upon any of the generally accepted applicable standards. (We agree with the general philosophy on this subject expressed in the dissenting Opinion in Wagner v. State of New York, 25 A D 2d 814.) He attempted to use comparable sales which were not in fact comparable, and he displayed a woeful lack of knowledge of the transactions upon which the so-called com-parables were founded. Apparently he had before him, as did the Trial Judge, a written report which was never received in evidence nor marked for identification, is not a part of the record, but to which nevertheless he referred constantly. As we do not have this report before ms, the references to it are meaningless. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims for claimant on a claim for permanent appropriation of realty.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 770, 272 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gold-cup-farms-inc-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack