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

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

DecidedMay 4, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 130 A.D.2d 461 (Kendall v. County of Dutchess) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 461, 514 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendall-v-county-of-dutchess-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack