In re Village of Port Chester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Village of Port Chester

294 A.D.2d 510, 742 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5211

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

DecidedMay 20, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 510 (In re Village of Port Chester) 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 Village of Port Chester, 294 A.D.2d 510, 742 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a condemnation proceeding, the claimants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered July 11, 2001, which denied their motion to direct the condemnor Village of Port Chester to make advance payments.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Eminent Domain Procedure Law provides no specific time requirement for advance payments to be made. Therefore, since the claimants offered no proof that the condemnor was not complying with EDPL 301 and 303, and since the condem[511]*511nor acknowledged its obligation to make advance payments and has begun to do so, the motion to direct the condemnor to make advance payments was properly denied. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In a condemnation proceeding, the claimants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered July 11, 2001, which denied their motion to direct the condemnor Village of Port Chester to make advance payments.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Eminent Domain Procedure Law provides no specific time requirement for advance payments to be made. Therefore, since the claimants offered no proof that the condemnor was not complying with EDPL 301 and 303, and since the condem[511]*511nor acknowledged its obligation to make advance payments and has begun to do so, the motion to direct the condemnor to make advance payments was properly denied. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 510, 742 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-village-of-port-chester-nyappdiv-2002.