Gotthardt v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gotthardt v. State

27 A.D.2d 880, 277 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4684

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1967

DocketClaim No. 43701

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 880 (Gotthardt 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

Gotthardt v. State, 27 A.D.2d 880, 277 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims which awarded the sum of $5,105.61 to the claimants for direct and consequential damages resulting from an appropriation of land. Albeit a suggestion has been advanced that some part of the consequential damages represented compensation for “ noise from the highway ”, it would be impossible from the present record to discern the actual amount thereof and the concession by the respondents in their brief is pure speculation. The amount mentioned by the 'State expert included noise, dust and relocation, so that whatever the amount, it would be minimal, not subject to appraisal by this court and not of such portent as to require a new trial. The award without including the element of noise was well within the range of the testimony. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.

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

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims which awarded the sum of $5,105.61 to the claimants for direct and consequential damages resulting from an appropriation of land. Albeit a suggestion has been advanced that some part of the consequential damages represented compensation for “ noise from the highway ”, it would be impossible from the present record to discern the actual amount thereof and the concession by the respondents in their brief is pure speculation. The amount mentioned by the 'State expert included noise, dust and relocation, so that whatever the amount, it would be minimal, not subject to appraisal by this court and not of such portent as to require a new trial. The award without including the element of noise was well within the range of the testimony. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 880, 277 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gotthardt-v-state-nyappdiv-1967.