Hammer v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hammer v. State

27 A.D.2d 696, 276 N.Y.S.2d 829

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1967

DocketClaim No. 42027

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 696 (Hammer 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

Hammer v. State, 27 A.D.2d 696, 276 N.Y.S.2d 829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

-Judgment affirmed, without costs. All concur, except Goldman and Marsh, JJ., who dissent and vote to modify the judgment by increasing the award to $17,150, in the following memorandum: The trial court found that “ the highest and best use * * * was for residential use with potential value for commercial purposes”. Notwithstanding this finding, the court adopted the land valuation testified to by the State’s witness who based his valuation on his opinion that the highest and best use was residential only. The record amply demonstrates that the neighborhood is rapidly losing its residential- character and soon will be predominantly commercial. The testimony of claimant’s expert and the comparable sales offered by claimant amply support a $1.50 per square foot valuation for the commercial potential of the property. We would, therefore, increase the land valuation to $9,830, making -a total award of $17,150. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims on a claim for permanent appropriation.) Present-—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.

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

-Judgment affirmed, without costs. All concur, except Goldman and Marsh, JJ., who dissent and vote to modify the judgment by increasing the award to $17,150, in the following memorandum: The trial court found that “ the highest and best use * * * was for residential use with potential value for commercial purposes”. Notwithstanding this finding, the court adopted the land valuation testified to by the State’s witness who based his valuation on his opinion that the highest and best use was residential only. The record amply demonstrates that the neighborhood is rapidly losing its residential- character and soon will be predominantly commercial. The testimony of claimant’s expert and the comparable sales offered by claimant amply support a $1.50 per square foot valuation for the commercial potential of the property. We would, therefore, increase the land valuation to $9,830, making -a total award of $17,150. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims on a claim for permanent appropriation.) Present-—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 696, 276 N.Y.S.2d 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammer-v-state-nyappdiv-1967.