Holl v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holl v. State

31 A.D.2d 875, 299 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4557

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1969

DocketClaim No. 44134

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 875 (Holl 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

Holl v. State, 31 A.D.2d 875, 299 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimants from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding them $2,151.90, and interest, for an appropriation made pursuant -to section 30 of the Highway Law. Decision in the instant appeal was previously withheld and the case remitted to the Court of Claims for appropriate findings (see 30 A D 2d 592, in which the essential facts appear) in accordance with which an amended decision of the Court of Claims ■ has -been filed. This amended decision sets out specifically the found acreage value and found increment due to a potential use for development purposes which had not been delineated in the court’s earlier decision. We find no basis advanced to disturb this amended decision and, accordingly, it is affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimants from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding them $2,151.90, and interest, for an appropriation made pursuant -to section 30 of the Highway Law. Decision in the instant appeal was previously withheld and the case remitted to the Court of Claims for appropriate findings (see 30 A D 2d 592, in which the essential facts appear) in accordance with which an amended decision of the Court of Claims ■ has -been filed. This amended decision sets out specifically the found acreage value and found increment due to a potential use for development purposes which had not been delineated in the court’s earlier decision. We find no basis advanced to disturb this amended decision and, accordingly, it is affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 875, 299 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holl-v-state-nyappdiv-1969.