In re the City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the City of New York

20 A.D.2d 636, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4495

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 636 (In re the 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 the City of New York, 20 A.D.2d 636, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Final decree, insofar as it makes an award for Damage Parcel 24, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial ordered, with costs to elaimants-appellants. There is a failure of proof on the part of petitioner. Petitioner’s expert appraised the premises as a rooming house on a net lease basis. This was error since the building is an apartment house. Consequently, the capitalization of 12% based on the appraisal of the premises as a rooming house is not useful. We are not entitled to substitute capitalization rates not found in the evidence. (Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.], 1 N Y 2d 428.) Since that is the only testimony on behalf of the petitioner concerning capitalization, the interests of justice require a new trial. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Final decree, insofar as it makes an award for Damage Parcel 24, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial ordered, with costs to elaimants-appellants. There is a failure of proof on the part of petitioner. Petitioner’s expert appraised the premises as a rooming house on a net lease basis. This was error since the building is an apartment house. Consequently, the capitalization of 12% based on the appraisal of the premises as a rooming house is not useful. We are not entitled to substitute capitalization rates not found in the evidence. (Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.], 1 N Y 2d 428.) Since that is the only testimony on behalf of the petitioner concerning capitalization, the interests of justice require a new trial. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 636, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1964.