In re New York State Urban Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re New York State Urban Development Corp.

308 A.D.2d 414, 765 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9984

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 414 (In re New York State Urban Development Corp.) 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 New York State Urban Development Corp., 308 A.D.2d 414, 765 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered April 17, 2002, awarding claimant $6,309,221 plus interest in this condemnation proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court exercised its discretion appropriately in concluding that the claimant’s potential sale of transferable development rights was too speculative to be included in the valuation of the condemned property (see Matter of Adirondack Hydro Dev. Corp., 205 AD2d 925, 926 [1994]). Indeed, there was ample evidence to support the court’s finding that, absent the condemnations affecting claimant’s and other property on 42nd Street, the adjacent lot would not have been developed in the reasonably near future (see Matter of City of New York [Broadway Cary Corp.], 34 NY2d 535, 536 [1974]), and, thus, that in the absence of 42nd Street condemnations the adjacent owner would have had no near term motive to purchase claimant’s transferable development rights.

The court properly concluded that income capitalization was the appropriate method of valuation for the condemned property, which was income producing (see Matter of Poe Ctr. [City of New York — 2641 Concourse Co.], 250 AD2d 304, 306-307 [1998]). Claimant did not establish that its property met any of the criteria for “specialty” status, and, accordingly, failed to demonstrate grounds warranting resort to the reproduction [415]*415cost method of valuation (id.). The court’s valuation determination was squarely within the range of expert testimony (see Matter of Albany County Airport Auth. [Buhrmaster], 265 AD2d 720, 722-723 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 758 [2000]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered April 17, 2002, awarding claimant $6,309,221 plus interest in this condemnation proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court exercised its discretion appropriately in concluding that the claimant’s potential sale of transferable development rights was too speculative to be included in the valuation of the condemned property (see Matter of Adirondack Hydro Dev. Corp., 205 AD2d 925, 926 [1994]). Indeed, there was ample evidence to support the court’s finding that, absent the condemnations affecting claimant’s and other property on 42nd Street, the adjacent lot would not have been developed in the reasonably near future (see Matter of City of New York [Broadway Cary Corp.], 34 NY2d 535, 536 [1974]), and, thus, that in the absence of 42nd Street condemnations the adjacent owner would have had no near term motive to purchase claimant’s transferable development rights.

The court properly concluded that income capitalization was the appropriate method of valuation for the condemned property, which was income producing (see Matter of Poe Ctr. [City of New York — 2641 Concourse Co.], 250 AD2d 304, 306-307 [1998]). Claimant did not establish that its property met any of the criteria for “specialty” status, and, accordingly, failed to demonstrate grounds warranting resort to the reproduction [415]*415cost method of valuation (id.). The court’s valuation determination was squarely within the range of expert testimony (see Matter of Albany County Airport Auth. [Buhrmaster], 265 AD2d 720, 722-723 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 758 [2000]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 414, 765 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-new-york-state-urban-development-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack