Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Holmes v. State

Holmes v. State

282 A.D. 278, 123 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4456
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 2, 1953
DocketClaim No. 29801
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 282 A.D. 278 (Holmes 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
Holmes v. State, 282 A.D. 278, 123 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Opinion

Coon, J.

In connection with a grade crossing elimination project in the village of Owego, N. Y., the State permanently closed a street leading in the most accessible manner to claimants’ feed mill. The State also appropriated a small parcel of claimants’ land for which compensation has previously been allowed by the Court of Claims. This appeal involves only consequential damage from loss of business because of the difficulty of access.

When a street is closed, if suitable means of access is not left to an owner of property, he is entitled to damages caused by the closing. (Egerer v. New York Central & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 108; Holmes v. State of New York, 279 App. Div. 489, 491.)

The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that claimants suffered substantial damage. The only remaining access, after the street closing, was roundabout, narrow, involved difficult turns and meeting places, to which claimants’ former customers would not submit.

It was more than inconvenient. The street closing cut off claimants’ property from all other and suitable means of access. Upon a remission from this court, after a previous trial (201 Misc. 640, revd. 279 App. Div. 489, 279 App. Div. 958), the Court of Claims has so found. The record sustains the finding.

Claimants also appeal on the sole ground of inadequacy. The record discloses no substantial reason for disturbing the judgment of the trial court in that respect.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Foster, P. J., Bergak, Halperk and Imrie, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Gengarelly v. Glen Cove Urban Renewal Agency
69 A.D.2d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Van Bortel v. Schuler
83 Misc. 2d 221 (New York Supreme Court, 1975)
Wernberg v. State
516 P.2d 1191 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1973)
Jordan v. State
33 A.D.2d 1097 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
Gulf Oil Corp. v. State
52 Misc. 2d 451 (New York State Court of Claims, 1966)
Ledogar v. City of New York
49 Misc. 2d 53 (New York Supreme Court, 1966)
Bakery Salvage Corp. v. City of Lackawanna
48 Misc. 2d 975 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Slepian v. State
48 Misc. 2d 340 (New York State Court of Claims, 1965)
Warfran Corp. v. State
49 Misc. 2d 766 (New York State Court of Claims, 1965)
Red Apple Rest, Inc. v. State
46 Misc. 2d 623 (New York State Court of Claims, 1965)
Beck v. State
21 A.D.2d 939 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Chili Plaza, Inc. v. State
42 Misc. 2d 861 (New York State Court of Claims, 1964)
Wynes v. State
37 Misc. 2d 710 (New York State Court of Claims, 1962)
Beck v. State
37 Misc. 2d 850 (New York State Court of Claims, 1962)
Merritt Manor Estates, Inc. v. Village of Elmsford
30 Misc. 2d 935 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Meloon Bronze Foundry, Inc. v. State
6 A.D.2d 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
People v. Pitts
5 A.D.2d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
Aichino v. State
2 Misc. 2d 1001 (New York State Court of Claims, 1956)
Crear v. State
2 A.D.2d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 A.D. 278, 123 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-state-nyappdiv-1953.