In re Board of Transportation ex rel. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Board of Transportation ex rel. City of New York

246 A.D. 757

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 757 (In re Board of Transportation ex rel. City of New York) 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

In re Board of Transportation ex rel. City of New York, 246 A.D. 757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Final decree fixing the value of leasehold rights, in so far as it affects the claim of appellant, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Carswell, Scudder, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur; Davis, J., dissents and votes to reverse. The lessee had a profitable going business in the property taken by the city. It had been long established and was well known to those who sought recreation of the nature there furnished; and it had a patronage which it was unlikely would follow fully to another location. The “ market value ” rule applied by the court at Special Term did not, in my opinion, fully or correctly measure the damages the appellant sustained. He was entitled to show the improvements made, the extent of his patronage and that the business was profitable — not as elements of damage but as a basis of the value in use in computing damages — this, not necessarily as a value in use to him individually, but to any one who might purchase his leasehold by assignment with the purpose of continuing to conduct a profitable business at this well-established place, already enjoying a steady patronage. (1 Nichols Em. Dom. [2d ed.] § 233.)

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

Final decree fixing the value of leasehold rights, in so far as it affects the claim of appellant, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Carswell, Scudder, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur; Davis, J., dissents and votes to reverse. The lessee had a profitable going business in the property taken by the city. It had been long established and was well known to those who sought recreation of the nature there furnished; and it had a patronage which it was unlikely would follow fully to another location. The “ market value ” rule applied by the court at Special Term did not, in my opinion, fully or correctly measure the damages the appellant sustained. He was entitled to show the improvements made, the extent of his patronage and that the business was profitable — not as elements of damage but as a basis of the value in use in computing damages — this, not necessarily as a value in use to him individually, but to any one who might purchase his leasehold by assignment with the purpose of continuing to conduct a profitable business at this well-established place, already enjoying a steady patronage. (1 Nichols Em. Dom. [2d ed.] § 233.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-board-of-transportation-ex-rel-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1935.