Mordecai v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mordecai v. State

118 A.D.2d 763, 500 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54624

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1986

DocketClaim No. 66626

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 763 (Mordecai 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

Mordecai v. State, 118 A.D.2d 763, 500 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a condemnation claim, the defendant State of New York appeals, and claimants cross-appeal, from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Orlando, J.), dated July 12, 1984, which awarded claimants the principal sum of $262,125 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from July 25, 1979 to August 5, 1981 and from May 7, 1982 to April 1, 1983, and at a rate of 9% per annum from April 1, 1983 to May 17, 1984.

Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words "July 25, 1979 to August 5, 1981, and from May 7, 1982 to April 1, 1983”, and substituting therefor the words "July 25, 1979 to April 1, 1983”. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although it may be questionable whether a special permit for a fast-food restaurant would have been granted for the condemned premises, there is other adequate evidence in the record to support the condemnation court’s fact findings of value (see, e.g., Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.J, 1 NY2d 428), particularly since the State’s comparable land sales are of little probative value. However, the trial court erred in suspending interest on the award from August 6, 1981 through May 6, 1982. Although counsel, at oral argument of the appeals, debated the issue of whether the claimants failed to file and serve their claim against the State within six months after the accrual of the claim, or within six months after personal service of the notice of acquisition by the State (see, EDPL 514 [B]), there is no indication either in [764]*764the record or the trial court’s decision that the claimants delayed in filing their claim. Therefore, interest on the award should not have been suspended. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In a condemnation claim, the defendant State of New York appeals, and claimants cross-appeal, from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Orlando, J.), dated July 12, 1984, which awarded claimants the principal sum of $262,125 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from July 25, 1979 to August 5, 1981 and from May 7, 1982 to April 1, 1983, and at a rate of 9% per annum from April 1, 1983 to May 17, 1984.

Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words "July 25, 1979 to August 5, 1981, and from May 7, 1982 to April 1, 1983”, and substituting therefor the words "July 25, 1979 to April 1, 1983”. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although it may be questionable whether a special permit for a fast-food restaurant would have been granted for the condemned premises, there is other adequate evidence in the record to support the condemnation court’s fact findings of value (see, e.g., Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.J, 1 NY2d 428), particularly since the State’s comparable land sales are of little probative value. However, the trial court erred in suspending interest on the award from August 6, 1981 through May 6, 1982. Although counsel, at oral argument of the appeals, debated the issue of whether the claimants failed to file and serve their claim against the State within six months after the accrual of the claim, or within six months after personal service of the notice of acquisition by the State (see, EDPL 514 [B]), there is no indication either in [764]*764the record or the trial court’s decision that the claimants delayed in filing their claim. Therefore, interest on the award should not have been suspended. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 763, 500 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mordecai-v-state-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack