Kradjian v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kradjian v. State

24 A.D.2d 661, 261 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3648

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1965

DocketClaim No. 40934

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 661 (Kradjian 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

Kradjian v. State, 24 A.D.2d 661, 261 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Upon the supplemental findings for which we remitted (22 A D 2d 481), the State maintains that the trial court failed to deduct from its computation of value the conceded cost of grading and removal of structures, but we presume that it did deduct this item, which it specifically found, and arrived at an award substantially lower than claimant’s evaluation, which took such deduction into account. Nothing to the contrary has been demonstrated. The State also contends that the value of a 14-foot right of way reserved by the court, for access to the rear of the property was overvalued, but it is clear that this area would have separate utility value in conjunction with the commercial frontage and that it would eventually revert to complete use as commercial frontage when the need for access to the rear portion ceased. We find no basis for the other contentions raised by the State, one of which was presented for the first time upon appeal. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Aulisi, J.

Upon the supplemental findings for which we remitted (22 A D 2d 481), the State maintains that the trial court failed to deduct from its computation of value the conceded cost of grading and removal of structures, but we presume that it did deduct this item, which it specifically found, and arrived at an award substantially lower than claimant’s evaluation, which took such deduction into account. Nothing to the contrary has been demonstrated. The State also contends that the value of a 14-foot right of way reserved by the court, for access to the rear of the property was overvalued, but it is clear that this area would have separate utility value in conjunction with the commercial frontage and that it would eventually revert to complete use as commercial frontage when the need for access to the rear portion ceased. We find no basis for the other contentions raised by the State, one of which was presented for the first time upon appeal. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 661, 261 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kradjian-v-state-nyappdiv-1965.