Kantak Homes, Inc. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kantak Homes, Inc. v. State

27 A.D.2d 698, 276 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5000

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1967

DocketClaim No. 41775

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 698 (Kantak Homes, Inc. 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

Kantak Homes, Inc. v. State, 27 A.D.2d 698, 276 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In affirming we have not overlooked the fact that the Trial Judge admitted into evidence upon the offer of the claimant an “ Agreement of Adjustment ” and a “ Notification by Superintendent of Offer to Settle .Claim ”. These had been submitted by the State to claimant pursuant to section 30 of the Highway Law, as amended. This was error. (Brummer v. State of New York, 25 A D 2d 245.) However, there is ample other evidence in the record to sustain the award, and it appears that the court did not necessarily rely upon such exhibits. (Hopkins v. State of New York, 276 App. Div. 945; Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Ritter, 24 A D 2d 1034.) If it were otherwise a reversal would be required. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in favor of claimant on a claim for permanent appropriation of realty.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In affirming we have not overlooked the fact that the Trial Judge admitted into evidence upon the offer of the claimant an “ Agreement of Adjustment ” and a “ Notification by Superintendent of Offer to Settle .Claim ”. These had been submitted by the State to claimant pursuant to section 30 of the Highway Law, as amended. This was error. (Brummer v. State of New York, 25 A D 2d 245.) However, there is ample other evidence in the record to sustain the award, and it appears that the court did not necessarily rely upon such exhibits. (Hopkins v. State of New York, 276 App. Div. 945; Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Ritter, 24 A D 2d 1034.) If it were otherwise a reversal would be required. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in favor of claimant on a claim for permanent appropriation of realty.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 698, 276 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kantak-homes-inc-v-state-nyappdiv-1967.