In re the Rochester Urban Renewal Agency

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Rochester Urban Renewal Agency

55 A.D.2d 1029, 391 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10380

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 1029 (In re the Rochester 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 the Rochester Urban Renewal Agency, 55 A.D.2d 1029, 391 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The trial court’s determination that the subject property qualifies as a "specialty” is amply supported and thus its utilization of the current cost of reproduction less depreciation approach was proper (Keator v State of New York, 23 NY2d 337, 340). The highest and best use of the improvement was its use by respondent Patchen Post, Inc., owned by Patchen-Briggs Post 307, Veterans of Foreign Wars, as a clubhouse. The facility was specifically designed, built and used for this purpose. Having concluded that the property was a "specialty”, there was no need for the trial court to consider the income approach to valuation advanced by petitioner. Nor did the trial court err in assessing land value. Its determination is within the range of testimony, supported by credible evidence and not grossly excessive (see Matter of City of New York [A & W Realty Corp.], 1 NY2d 428; McNitt v State of New York, 24 AD2d 544). Accordingly, it should not he disturbed (see 5 Nichols, Eminent Domain [3d ed], § 17.1[4]). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court — condemnation.) Present. — Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Dillon and Goldman, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The trial court’s determination that the subject property qualifies as a "specialty” is amply supported and thus its utilization of the current cost of reproduction less depreciation approach was proper (Keator v State of New York, 23 NY2d 337, 340). The highest and best use of the improvement was its use by respondent Patchen Post, Inc., owned by Patchen-Briggs Post 307, Veterans of Foreign Wars, as a clubhouse. The facility was specifically designed, built and used for this purpose. Having concluded that the property was a "specialty”, there was no need for the trial court to consider the income approach to valuation advanced by petitioner. Nor did the trial court err in assessing land value. Its determination is within the range of testimony, supported by credible evidence and not grossly excessive (see Matter of City of New York [A & W Realty Corp.], 1 NY2d 428; McNitt v State of New York, 24 AD2d 544). Accordingly, it should not he disturbed (see 5 Nichols, Eminent Domain [3d ed], § 17.1[4]). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court — condemnation.) Present. — Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Dillon and Goldman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 1029, 391 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-rochester-urban-renewal-agency-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack