Lott v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lott v. State

55 A.D.2d 1032, 391 N.Y.S.2d 264

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1977

DocketClaim No. 54047

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 1032 (Lott 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

Lott v. State, 55 A.D.2d 1032, 391 N.Y.S.2d 264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Memo[1033]*1033randum: Claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims which granted him an award for damages resulting from the appropriation of a portion of his property by the State of New York. The award and its separate components of direct damages and consequential damages are within the range of expert testimony and are affirmed (Matter of City of New York [A & W Realty Corp.], 1 NY2d 428; City of Buffalo v Clement Co., 45 AD2d 620). Although the experts characterized the highest and best use of the property differently, the record discloses that their findings were essentially the same. Of particular significance is that each of the experts supported his appraisal with the same comparable sale on a whole-to-whole comparison. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims — appropriation.) Present — Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Memo[1033]*1033randum: Claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims which granted him an award for damages resulting from the appropriation of a portion of his property by the State of New York. The award and its separate components of direct damages and consequential damages are within the range of expert testimony and are affirmed (Matter of City of New York [A & W Realty Corp.], 1 NY2d 428; City of Buffalo v Clement Co., 45 AD2d 620). Although the experts characterized the highest and best use of the property differently, the record discloses that their findings were essentially the same. Of particular significance is that each of the experts supported his appraisal with the same comparable sale on a whole-to-whole comparison. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims — appropriation.) Present — Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 1032, 391 N.Y.S.2d 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lott-v-state-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack