Kendall v. County of Dutchess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kendall v. County of Dutchess

130 A.D.2d 461, 514 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46431

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 4, 1987·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination and findings of the respondent .County of Dutchess, dated July 10, 1986, authorizing the acquisition of certain property owned by the petitioners for improvement of a county road.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed, with costs.

Contrary to the condemnees’ contention, the finding that the proposed acquisition will serve a "public use, benefit or purpose” (EDPL 204 [B] [1]) is amply supported by testimony that the improvement of the intersection of Baker Road and Beekman Road in the Town of Beekman is necessary for the safety of motorists using those roads.

Furthermore, the condemnees’ claim that a public hearing on the proposed acquisition failed to conform to the Federal and State Constitutions (see, EDPL 207 [C] [1]) as a result of the alleged bias of the Commissioner of Public Works, finds no support in the record. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination and findings of the respondent .County of Dutchess, dated July 10, 1986, authorizing the acquisition of certain property owned by the petitioners for improvement of a county road.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed, with costs.

Contrary to the condemnees’ contention, the finding that the proposed acquisition will serve a "public use, benefit or purpose” (EDPL 204 [B] [1]) is amply supported by testimony that the improvement of the intersection of Baker Road and Beekman Road in the Town of Beekman is necessary for the safety of motorists using those roads.

Furthermore, the condemnees’ claim that a public hearing on the proposed acquisition failed to conform to the Federal and State Constitutions (see, EDPL 207 [C] [1]) as a result of the alleged bias of the Commissioner of Public Works, finds no support in the record. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Kendall v. County of Dutchess, 130 A.D.2d 461, 514 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

130 A.D.2d 461 (Kendall v. County of Dutchess) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related