In re Williamsburgh II Urban Renewal Area

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Williamsburgh II Urban Renewal Area

208 A.D.2d 548, 616 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9365

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 548 (In re Williamsburgh II Urban Renewal Area) 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 Williamsburgh II Urban Renewal Area, 208 A.D.2d 548, 616 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a condemnation proceeding, the condemnor appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leone, J.), dated September 16, 1992, as awarded the claimant $42,022.60 as an additional allowance pursuant to EDPL 701.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In this case, the condemnor’s offer was $52,000, while the claimant was awarded $152,000. As the $100,000 difference was 192% above the offer, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the claimant an additional award of $42,022.60 comprised of an attorneys’ fee of $38,822.60, an appraiser’s fee of $2,500, and a transcript fee of $700 (see, EDPL 701; Hakes v State of New York, 81 NY2d 392, 397-398; Matter of E.D.J. Quality Realty Corp. v Village of Massapequa Park, 204 AD2d 321; Matter of County of Suffolk v Johnathan, 190 AD2d 848; Hoffman v Town of Malta, 189 AD2d 968; Scuderi v State of New York, 184 AD2d 1073, 1074; Matter of Malin v State of New York, 183 AD2d 899). We have considered the condemnor’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a condemnation proceeding, the condemnor appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leone, J.), dated September 16, 1992, as awarded the claimant $42,022.60 as an additional allowance pursuant to EDPL 701.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In this case, the condemnor’s offer was $52,000, while the claimant was awarded $152,000. As the $100,000 difference was 192% above the offer, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the claimant an additional award of $42,022.60 comprised of an attorneys’ fee of $38,822.60, an appraiser’s fee of $2,500, and a transcript fee of $700 (see, EDPL 701; Hakes v State of New York, 81 NY2d 392, 397-398; Matter of E.D.J. Quality Realty Corp. v Village of Massapequa Park, 204 AD2d 321; Matter of County of Suffolk v Johnathan, 190 AD2d 848; Hoffman v Town of Malta, 189 AD2d 968; Scuderi v State of New York, 184 AD2d 1073, 1074; Matter of Malin v State of New York, 183 AD2d 899). We have considered the condemnor’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 548, 616 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-williamsburgh-ii-urban-renewal-area-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack