Investors Collateral Corp. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Investors Collateral Corp. v. State

114 A.D.2d 437, 494 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53131

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1985

DocketClaim No. 64983

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 437 (Investors Collateral Corp. v. State) 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

Investors Collateral Corp. v. State, 114 A.D.2d 437, 494 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an eminent domain proceeding, the State of New York appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (McCabe, J.), dated November 29, 1983, which awarded claimant $47,008 plus interest thereon, for a total award of $57,193.07.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

We find no reason to disturb the judgment under review. Claimant was a real estate developer and subdivider and the subject tract had been the subject of ongoing and sequential subdivisions in a high growth area. At least one year before the de facto taking—a taking of a permanent easement to facilitate increased drainage from a reconstructed highway— claimant had prepared and obtained from the Town of East Fishkill Planning Board preliminary approval of the subject subdivision. The subdivision was virtually at the end of and a climax to a long ongoing sequence of subdivisions of the property acquired by claimant in 1969. Thus, the subdivision was not merely a plan prepared but never filed (see, Tarricone v State of New York, 23 AD2d 804) or a subdivision plan filed but not acted upon (see, Matter of County of Suffolk [Firester], 37 NY2d 649), and in the context of this case was not conjectural or speculative (see, Tarricone v State of New York, supra; Barra v State of New York, 22 AD2d 750). Under these circumstances and in view of the testimony of appraiser Albert and engineer Chazen, the use of per-lot before-and-after valuations of the residential portion of the property cannot be deemed a ground for disturbing the award of the trial court [438]*438(see, Matter of of Simmons, 141 App Div 120, affd 202 NY 606; United States v 147.47 Acres of Land, 352 F Supp 1055; United States v 100 Acres of Land, 468 F2d 1261, cert denied 414 US 822).

We find no merit to appellant’s other contentions. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

—In an eminent domain proceeding, the State of New York appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (McCabe, J.), dated November 29, 1983, which awarded claimant $47,008 plus interest thereon, for a total award of $57,193.07.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

We find no reason to disturb the judgment under review. Claimant was a real estate developer and subdivider and the subject tract had been the subject of ongoing and sequential subdivisions in a high growth area. At least one year before the de facto taking—a taking of a permanent easement to facilitate increased drainage from a reconstructed highway— claimant had prepared and obtained from the Town of East Fishkill Planning Board preliminary approval of the subject subdivision. The subdivision was virtually at the end of and a climax to a long ongoing sequence of subdivisions of the property acquired by claimant in 1969. Thus, the subdivision was not merely a plan prepared but never filed (see, Tarricone v State of New York, 23 AD2d 804) or a subdivision plan filed but not acted upon (see, Matter of County of Suffolk [Firester], 37 NY2d 649), and in the context of this case was not conjectural or speculative (see, Tarricone v State of New York, supra; Barra v State of New York, 22 AD2d 750). Under these circumstances and in view of the testimony of appraiser Albert and engineer Chazen, the use of per-lot before-and-after valuations of the residential portion of the property cannot be deemed a ground for disturbing the award of the trial court [438]*438(see, Matter of of Simmons, 141 App Div 120, affd 202 NY 606; United States v 147.47 Acres of Land, 352 F Supp 1055; United States v 100 Acres of Land, 468 F2d 1261, cert denied 414 US 822).

We find no merit to appellant’s other contentions. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 437, 494 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/investors-collateral-corp-v-state-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack