Horowitch v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Horowitch v. State

33 A.D.2d 888, 307 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2649

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1969

DocketClaim No. 45449

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 888 (Horowitch 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

Horowitch v. State, 33 A.D.2d 888, 307 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified by increasing the award to $28,675 and as modified affirmed. Memorandum: Claimant appeals from the award on the ground that his claim for the value of the millwork and counter fixtures, which was assigned to him by the tenant, should have been allowed. The State concedes that the court should have increased the award by $13,500, the amount asserted by claimant, and agrees that the amount of the award should be $28,675 with interest. This modification, the State argues “should be made, however, only in the event that the award for the structure is modified downward.” The claim for the structure is a separate and independent matter which is in no way dependent upon the assigned claim for the value of the fixtures. It is clear that the value of the millwork and counter fixtures was inadvertently omitted and should have been allowed. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in claim for permanent appropriation.) Present —■ Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Gabrielli, Moule and Bastow, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified by increasing the award to $28,675 and as modified affirmed. Memorandum: Claimant appeals from the award on the ground that his claim for the value of the millwork and counter fixtures, which was assigned to him by the tenant, should have been allowed. The State concedes that the court should have increased the award by $13,500, the amount asserted by claimant, and agrees that the amount of the award should be $28,675 with interest. This modification, the State argues “should be made, however, only in the event that the award for the structure is modified downward.” The claim for the structure is a separate and independent matter which is in no way dependent upon the assigned claim for the value of the fixtures. It is clear that the value of the millwork and counter fixtures was inadvertently omitted and should have been allowed. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in claim for permanent appropriation.) Present —■ Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Gabrielli, Moule and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 888, 307 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horowitch-v-state-nyappdiv-1969.