Home/New York Court of Appeals/Matter of City of New York

Matter of City of New York

415 N.E.2d 970, 51 N.Y.2d 921, 434 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2763
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 13, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 415 N.E.2d 970 (Matter of City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of City of New York, 415 N.E.2d 970, 51 N.Y.2d 921, 434 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2763 (N.Y. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

"Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Public School No. 223 parcel: The factual determinations made by Supreme Court with respect to use of this parcel for a governmentally financed apartment house as the highest and best use, with respect to change of zoning and tax abatement, and with respect to governmental financing, together with the agreed land valuation, having been affirmed at the Appellate Division, are now beyond the scope of our review, there being evidentiary support therefor in the record. Based on these factual predicates and in view of the positions taken by the parties on trial, we cannot say that there was error of law in the method of valuation chosen or in the application of that method. While normally the fact that the rezoning had not actually been accomplished would *924 call for at least some discount (see dissenting opn of Mr. Justice Leon D. Lazer at the Appellate Division, 71 AD2d, p 1021), in this instance no proof was offered as to what that discount should be in the relevant market conditions. Accordingly, we see no sufficient reason to disturb the determination made by both courts below as to the value of this parcel.

Urban Renewal parcel: No notice of appeal from the partial final decree of Supreme Court dated June 24, 1976 having been filed, it was not error for the Appellate Division to have dismissed the appeal sought to be taken from that decree.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

STATE BY COM'R OF TRANSP. v. Caoili
639 A.2d 275 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1994)
Nunes v. State
108 A.D.2d 1082 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. State
103 A.D.2d 211 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Tandoi v. State
87 A.D.2d 816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v. Lee
83 A.D.2d 770 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
415 N.E.2d 970, 51 N.Y.2d 921, 434 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-city-of-new-york-ny-1980.