In re Bronx Parkway Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Bronx Parkway Commission

213 A.D. 874

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

DecidedApril 15, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D. 874 (In re Bronx Parkway Commission) 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 Bronx Parkway Commission, 213 A.D. 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of Special Term setting aside the report of the commissioners of appraisal and directing a rehearing before new commissioners reversed, upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to confirm the report of the commissioners granted, with costs. The order is appealable. (Matter of Manhattan Railway Co. v. Stuyvesant, 126 App. Div. 848, 849.) The award was not based upon an erroneous theory. The testimony regarding the availability of the land for industrial or commercial purposes was permissible. (Matter of Bronx Parkway Commission [Ferris], 206 App. Div. 526; Matter of Bronx Parkway Commission [Farley], 192 id. 412.) Our former decision in this ease was based principally upon the fact that the experts capitalized a loss of profits which might possibly be earned by the establishment of a hypothetical ice plant. We did not intend to hold that “ all available uses and purposes ” to which vacant land might reasonably be adapted should not be considered in determining market value; in fact, we expressly stated to the contrary. [See 191 App. Div. 212.] We are of the opinion that the award made by the commissioners was fairly within the testimony regarding valuation, and that it should not have been set aside as excessive. Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Manning, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur.

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

Order of Special Term setting aside the report of the commissioners of appraisal and directing a rehearing before new commissioners reversed, upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to confirm the report of the commissioners granted, with costs. The order is appealable. (Matter of Manhattan Railway Co. v. Stuyvesant, 126 App. Div. 848, 849.) The award was not based upon an erroneous theory. The testimony regarding the availability of the land for industrial or commercial purposes was permissible. (Matter of Bronx Parkway Commission [Ferris], 206 App. Div. 526; Matter of Bronx Parkway Commission [Farley], 192 id. 412.) Our former decision in this ease was based principally upon the fact that the experts capitalized a loss of profits which might possibly be earned by the establishment of a hypothetical ice plant. We did not intend to hold that “ all available uses and purposes ” to which vacant land might reasonably be adapted should not be considered in determining market value; in fact, we expressly stated to the contrary. [See 191 App. Div. 212.] We are of the opinion that the award made by the commissioners was fairly within the testimony regarding valuation, and that it should not have been set aside as excessive. Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Manning, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D. 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bronx-parkway-commission-nyappdiv-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack