Movieplex 42, Inc. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Movieplex 42, Inc. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

61 A.D.3d 421, 875 N.Y.S.2d 485

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

DecidedApril 2, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 421 (Movieplex 42, Inc. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.) 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

Movieplex 42, Inc. v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 61 A.D.3d 421, 875 N.Y.S.2d 485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. De-Grasse, J.), entered August 13, 2007, which granted respondent’s motion to strike the claim for fixture compensation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that the claim for the value of the fixtures was encompassed in the award for the value of the theater building (see Matter of City of New York [Lincoln Sq. Slum Clearance Project], 24 Misc 2d 206, 208 [1960] [“to give the owner an additional award for fixtures would be to duplicate the award which was heretofore made for the theatre building based on a rental which included the use of these same fixtures and equipment”], mod on other grounds 15 AD2d 153 [1961], affd 16 NY2d 497 [1965]). Contrary to claimant’s contention, it was in privity with the building owner and had a full and fair [422]*422opportunity to participate in the prior valuation proceeding (see generally Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. De-Grasse, J.), entered August 13, 2007, which granted respondent’s motion to strike the claim for fixture compensation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that the claim for the value of the fixtures was encompassed in the award for the value of the theater building (see Matter of City of New York [Lincoln Sq. Slum Clearance Project], 24 Misc 2d 206, 208 [1960] [“to give the owner an additional award for fixtures would be to duplicate the award which was heretofore made for the theatre building based on a rental which included the use of these same fixtures and equipment”], mod on other grounds 15 AD2d 153 [1961], affd 16 NY2d 497 [1965]). Contrary to claimant’s contention, it was in privity with the building owner and had a full and fair [422]*422opportunity to participate in the prior valuation proceeding (see generally Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 421, 875 N.Y.S.2d 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/movieplex-42-inc-v-new-york-state-urban-development-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack