In re the City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the City of New York

254 A.D.2d 210, 679 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11354

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 210 (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, 254 A.D.2d 210, 679 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered February 9, 1998, awarding claimant condemnee additional amounts for litigation costs pursuant to EDPL 701, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that a significant portion of claimant’s efforts and costs were expended to develop and present valuation theories to support a claim for compensation substantially in excess of what the court awarded, and see no reason to disturb its exercise of discretion in awarding additional amounts substantially less than what claimant was asking for (see, Hakes v State of New York, 81 NY2d 392, 397). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered February 9, 1998, awarding claimant condemnee additional amounts for litigation costs pursuant to EDPL 701, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that a significant portion of claimant’s efforts and costs were expended to develop and present valuation theories to support a claim for compensation substantially in excess of what the court awarded, and see no reason to disturb its exercise of discretion in awarding additional amounts substantially less than what claimant was asking for (see, Hakes v State of New York, 81 NY2d 392, 397). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 210, 679 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack