New York City Transit Authority v. Donner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York City Transit Authority v. Donner

160 A.D.2d 479

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

DecidedApril 17, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.D.2d 479 (New York City Transit Authority v. Donner) 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

New York City Transit Authority v. Donner, 160 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.), entered on or about January 19, 1989, which, inter alia, awarded claimant Batter-Up, Inc. no compensation for the unexpired term of its lease upon the city’s condemnation of the subject property by eminent domain, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The property which is the subject of this controversy is part of a parcel owned by the estate of Max Donner which was rented to claimant pursuant to a written lease for a term of 11 years. At the time the city applied to acquire title to the property, six years remained on claimant’s lease. Consequently, claimant sought recovery for the value of its unexpired leasehold interest. The hearing court determined that claimant failed to demonstrate that its leasehold interest had any value that merited an award.

The evidence fails to sustain claimant’s contention that the use to which the premises were restricted pursuant to the lease was of any value to the tenant. Indeed, the appraisers [480]*480could not locate any comparable leases for the purpose of assessing its worth. Moreover, claimant’s business did not operate at a profit, Claimant was in arrears in its rent, and it had never made any payments under the cost-of-living adjustment clause of the lease.

Claimant relies on Irv-Ceil Realty Corp. v State of New York (43 AD2d 775, 776), in which the court noted that "market realities” dictate that a leasehold retains some value where 19 years remain in the term at the time of its appropriation. Here, by contrast, only six years remained in the term, and the landlord retained the right to terminate the lease in the event of a sale or rental of the property. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the record reflects no "market realities” which dictate a recovery in this case. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.), entered on or about January 19, 1989, which, inter alia, awarded claimant Batter-Up, Inc. no compensation for the unexpired term of its lease upon the city’s condemnation of the subject property by eminent domain, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The property which is the subject of this controversy is part of a parcel owned by the estate of Max Donner which was rented to claimant pursuant to a written lease for a term of 11 years. At the time the city applied to acquire title to the property, six years remained on claimant’s lease. Consequently, claimant sought recovery for the value of its unexpired leasehold interest. The hearing court determined that claimant failed to demonstrate that its leasehold interest had any value that merited an award.

The evidence fails to sustain claimant’s contention that the use to which the premises were restricted pursuant to the lease was of any value to the tenant. Indeed, the appraisers [480]*480could not locate any comparable leases for the purpose of assessing its worth. Moreover, claimant’s business did not operate at a profit, Claimant was in arrears in its rent, and it had never made any payments under the cost-of-living adjustment clause of the lease.

Claimant relies on Irv-Ceil Realty Corp. v State of New York (43 AD2d 775, 776), in which the court noted that "market realities” dictate that a leasehold retains some value where 19 years remain in the term at the time of its appropriation. Here, by contrast, only six years remained in the term, and the landlord retained the right to terminate the lease in the event of a sale or rental of the property. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the record reflects no "market realities” which dictate a recovery in this case. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-city-transit-authority-v-donner-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack