Home/New York Court of Appeals/McDonald v. State

McDonald v. State

366 N.E.2d 1344, 42 N.Y.2d 900, 397 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2232
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 16, 1977
DocketClaim 56971
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 366 N.E.2d 1344 (McDonald v. State) 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
McDonald v. State, 366 N.E.2d 1344, 42 N.Y.2d 900, 397 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2232 (N.Y. 1977).

Opinion

Memorandum. We would affirm the order of the Appellate Division, but find it necessary to clarify the proper basis for the result reached. The measure of damages for a partial taking of real property is the difference between the property’s value before the condemnation and the value afterward. To calculate the before-taking value, the Court of Claims upwardly adjusted the sales price of a comparable parcel by the depreciated cost of converting that parcel to use as a small animal hospital. Such an adjustment actually resulted in the finding of a replacement value, which value is only relevant in *901 appraising a specialty. The subject property was not a specialty since it had a potential to be and was eventually used for purposes other than as a small animal hospital. Thus, the Appellate Division properly modified the condemnation award by deleting this adjustment for renovation costs. Nonetheless, the claimant was entitled to recover the value of fixtures whose utility was destroyed when the partial taking made it impossible to continue to use the premises as a small animal hospital.

Whenever such an increment is authorized, as it is here, the found increment value "must be based on sufficient evidence and be satisfactorily explained”. (Matter of County of Suffolk [Firester], 37 NY2d 649, 653.) The Appellate Division found this value to be $9,350. While it would appear that the Appellate Division arbitrarily adjusted the value of the fixtures to be equal to some unexplained 10% of the before-value of the subject property, we find sufficient evidence in the record to support the award. The concrete dog runways, the chain-link fencing and gates, a special incinerator, and structural glass cages, all of which are fixtures for which compensation is due, had a value of between $9,224 and $9,619. Hence, the Appellate Division’s actual adjustment of valuation at $9,350 was "conformable with the weight of evidence”. (Matter of City of New York [Coogan], 20 NY2d 618, 623.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke 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

ROSE PARK PLACE, INC. v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Rose Park Place, Inc. v. State
120 A.D.3d 8 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Lerner Pavlick Realty v. State
98 A.D.3d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Chester Industrial Park Associates, LLP v. State
65 A.D.3d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Fry
254 A.D.2d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Acquisition of Real Property by the County of Warren
244 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Nimby Food Service, Inc. v. State
241 A.D.2d 542 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Gold-Mark 35 Associates v. State
210 A.D.2d 377 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
In re Town of Oyster Bay
174 A.D.2d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Kaszubowski v. State
112 A.D.2d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Saratoga County Sewer District 1 v. Gordon
101 A.D.2d 966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Brookhaven v. Gold
89 A.D.2d 963 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Mil-Pine Plaza, Inc. v. State
72 A.D.2d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Camillus Hills Pet Lodge, Inc. v. State
70 A.D.2d 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v. Willsea Works
62 A.D.2d 1169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Kiernan
366 N.E.2d 808 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
366 N.E.2d 1344, 42 N.Y.2d 900, 397 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-state-ny-1977.