In re Incorporated Village of Hempstead Urban Renewal Agency

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Incorporated Village of Hempstead Urban Renewal Agency

116 A.D.2d 644, 498 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51507

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.2d 644 (In re Incorporated Village of Hempstead Urban Renewal Agency) 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 Incorporated Village of Hempstead Urban Renewal Agency, 116 A.D.2d 644, 498 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a condemnation proceeding, the parties cross-appeal from a judg[645]*645ment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), entered June 13, 1984, which awarded claimant the principal sum of $50,530, plus interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The findings of the trial court with respect to the value of the condemned property in question were within the range of the expert testimony, were supported by other evidence in the record, and were adequately explained by the court (see, e.g., Matter of City of New York [Reiss], 55 NY2d 885; Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.], 1 NY2d 428). The capitalization rate used by the trial court was based on the credible evidence in the record (see, Shore Haven Apts. No. 6 v Commissioner of Fin. of City of N. Y., 93 AD2d 233; Matter of City of New York [Oceanview Terrace], 42 NY2d 948; Diocese of Buffalo v State of New York, 18 NY2d 41; People ex rel. Manhattan Ry. Co. v Woodbury, 203 NY 231). In addition, we decline to disturb the finding of the trial court with respect to the interest rate to be applied to the award. We have considered the parties’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a condemnation proceeding, the parties cross-appeal from a judg[645]*645ment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), entered June 13, 1984, which awarded claimant the principal sum of $50,530, plus interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The findings of the trial court with respect to the value of the condemned property in question were within the range of the expert testimony, were supported by other evidence in the record, and were adequately explained by the court (see, e.g., Matter of City of New York [Reiss], 55 NY2d 885; Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.], 1 NY2d 428). The capitalization rate used by the trial court was based on the credible evidence in the record (see, Shore Haven Apts. No. 6 v Commissioner of Fin. of City of N. Y., 93 AD2d 233; Matter of City of New York [Oceanview Terrace], 42 NY2d 948; Diocese of Buffalo v State of New York, 18 NY2d 41; People ex rel. Manhattan Ry. Co. v Woodbury, 203 NY 231). In addition, we decline to disturb the finding of the trial court with respect to the interest rate to be applied to the award. We have considered the parties’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 644, 498 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-incorporated-village-of-hempstead-urban-renewal-agency-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack