McCarty v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCarty v. State

115 A.D.2d 344, 496 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54629

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1985

DocketClaim No. 64125

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 344 (McCarty 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

McCarty v. State, 115 A.D.2d 344, 496 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

25.) Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Although there is no range of testimony to support the court’s determination as to the value of the building, the court fully set forth its reasoning in arriving at its value and the determination is supported by other evidence in the record (see, Zittel v State of New York, 65 AD2d 926; Novack v State of New York, 61 AD2d 288, 289).

We reject claimant’s argument that the award should be vacated because the court stated that the highest and best use was a "sale to Corning [Glass].” In making this statement, the court impliedly considered that the highest and best use was an industrial use such as Corning might make.

We find no merit to claimant’s argument that the State is not entitled to recover judgment against the claimant for the difference between the advance payment and the court’s award. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims, Hanifin, J. —appropriation.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

25.) Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Although there is no range of testimony to support the court’s determination as to the value of the building, the court fully set forth its reasoning in arriving at its value and the determination is supported by other evidence in the record (see, Zittel v State of New York, 65 AD2d 926; Novack v State of New York, 61 AD2d 288, 289).

We reject claimant’s argument that the award should be vacated because the court stated that the highest and best use was a "sale to Corning [Glass].” In making this statement, the court impliedly considered that the highest and best use was an industrial use such as Corning might make.

We find no merit to claimant’s argument that the State is not entitled to recover judgment against the claimant for the difference between the advance payment and the court’s award. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims, Hanifin, J. —appropriation.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 344, 496 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarty-v-state-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack