Matter of City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of City of New York

309 N.E.2d 870, 34 N.Y.2d 535, 354 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1860

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 20, 1974·Published·Cited by 48 cases

Opinion

*536 Memorandum. We affirm the determination reached by the Appellate Division. The condemnor’s evidence of value consisted of the traditionally accepted standard of comparable sales of adjacent parcels, and the record reveals this to be the only valid evidence of value. Claimants failed to substantiate their contention that the highest and best use of the condemned parcels, situated in an area zoned for light manufacturing, was for the erection of a community shopping center. Their evidence in this regard related to the physical feasibility of such a complex without any reference to or evidence of the economic feasibility of the proposed venture, and in these circumstances there was a failure to show its highest and best use to be for a shopping center. While it is not essential to demonstrate either that the property had been used as its projected highest and best use or that there had been an ante litem plan for such use (Keator v. State of New York, 23 N Y 2d 337, 339), it is, of course, necessary to show that there is a reasonable probability that its asserted use could or would have been made within the reasonably near future (Matter of City of New York [Wilson], 21 A D 2d 652, 653, affd. 16 N Y 2d 814); and a “ use which is no more than a speculative or hypothetical arrangement in the mind of the claimant may not be accepted as the basis for an award ” (Matter of City of New York [Shorefront High School — Rudnick], 25 N Y 2d 146, 149; Triple Cities Shopping Center v. State of New York, 26 A D 2d 744, affd. 22 N Y 2d 683). We noted in Shorefront High School — Rudnick (at p. 149) that it “ is likely that the expert would consider the availability of financing, costs of construction, taxes, possible profits and the like in árriving at his conclusion concerning the highest and best use of the land, and its probable market price.” Claimants’ evidence fell far short of the usual criteria.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

*536 Memorandum. We affirm the determination reached by the Appellate Division. The condemnor’s evidence of value consisted of the traditionally accepted standard of comparable sales of adjacent parcels, and the record reveals this to be the only valid evidence of value. Claimants failed to substantiate their contention that the highest and best use of the condemned parcels, situated in an area zoned for light manufacturing, was for the erection of a community shopping center. Their evidence in this regard related to the physical feasibility of such a complex without any reference to or evidence of the economic feasibility of the proposed venture, and in these circumstances there was a failure to show its highest and best use to be for a shopping center. While it is not essential to demonstrate either that the property had been used as its projected highest and best use or that there had been an ante litem plan for such use (Keator v. State of New York, 23 N Y 2d 337, 339), it is, of course, necessary to show that there is a reasonable probability that its asserted use could or would have been made within the reasonably near future (Matter of City of New York [Wilson], 21 A D 2d 652, 653, affd. 16 N Y 2d 814); and a “ use which is no more than a speculative or hypothetical arrangement in the mind of the claimant may not be accepted as the basis for an award ” (Matter of City of New York [Shorefront High School — Rudnick], 25 N Y 2d 146, 149; Triple Cities Shopping Center v. State of New York, 26 A D 2d 744, affd. 22 N Y 2d 683). We noted in Shorefront High School — Rudnick (at p. 149) that it “ is likely that the expert would consider the availability of financing, costs of construction, taxes, possible profits and the like in árriving at his conclusion concerning the highest and best use of the land, and its probable market price.” Claimants’ evidence fell far short of the usual criteria.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Matter of City of New York, 309 N.E.2d 870, 34 N.Y.2d 535, 354 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1860 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

309 N.E.2d 870 (Matter of City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related