New York State Development Corp. v. 230 West 41st Street Associates LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York State Development Corp. v. 230 West 41st Street Associates LLC

77 A.D.3d 479, 908 N.Y.S.2d 685

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 A.D.3d 479 (New York State Development Corp. v. 230 West 41st Street Associates LLC) 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 State Development Corp. v. 230 West 41st Street Associates LLC, 77 A.D.3d 479, 908 N.Y.S.2d 685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J), entered July 27, 2009, which, following a nonjury trial, awarded $1.315 million in direct damages and declined to award consequential damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of compensation for the condemned property was based upon the appropriate factors, and Supreme Court’s findings were within the range of expert testimony (see Matter of City of New York [Reiss], 55 NY2d 885, 886 [1982]). Although Supreme Court’s written decision does not set forth mathematical calculations, the record on appeal is sufficient to permit thorough and cogent review (see NOCO Energy Corp. v State of New York, 67 AD3d 1354, 1355 [2009]). Having conducted such review, we conclude that the court, after adopting claimant’s valuation of the condemned property as per its highest and best use as a building “shell” suitable for development, did not abuse [480]*480its discretion by deducting from such valuation those costs required to convert the building to such condition, and adjusting its award of direct damages accordingly.

Consequential damages were not warranted for a portion of the taking which was de minimis (see Matter of Rockland County Sewer Dist. No. 1 v J. & J. Dodge, 213 AD2d 409, 412 [1995]; Matter of American Tel. & Tel. Co. v Salesian Socy., 77 AD2d 706, 707 [1980], appeal dismissed 51 NY2d 877 [1980]).

Supreme Court did not err by admitting into evidence a confidential written agreement winch, by its terms, allowed for its use by the court in condemnation proceedings.

Petitioner’s expert appraiser’s opinion as to damages was not rendered inadmissible due to partial reliance upon outside material which was of the kind ordinarily accepted by experts in the field (see Matter of Jamie R. v Consilvio, 17 AD3d 52, 60 [2005], affd 6 NY3d 138 [2006]; Matter of Chrysler Realty Corp. v Foley, 74 AD2d 847, 848 [1980], appeal dismissed 50 NY2d 928 [1980]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J), entered July 27, 2009, which, following a nonjury trial, awarded $1.315 million in direct damages and declined to award consequential damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of compensation for the condemned property was based upon the appropriate factors, and Supreme Court’s findings were within the range of expert testimony (see Matter of City of New York [Reiss], 55 NY2d 885, 886 [1982]). Although Supreme Court’s written decision does not set forth mathematical calculations, the record on appeal is sufficient to permit thorough and cogent review (see NOCO Energy Corp. v State of New York, 67 AD3d 1354, 1355 [2009]). Having conducted such review, we conclude that the court, after adopting claimant’s valuation of the condemned property as per its highest and best use as a building “shell” suitable for development, did not abuse [480]*480its discretion by deducting from such valuation those costs required to convert the building to such condition, and adjusting its award of direct damages accordingly.

Consequential damages were not warranted for a portion of the taking which was de minimis (see Matter of Rockland County Sewer Dist. No. 1 v J. & J. Dodge, 213 AD2d 409, 412 [1995]; Matter of American Tel. & Tel. Co. v Salesian Socy., 77 AD2d 706, 707 [1980], appeal dismissed 51 NY2d 877 [1980]).

Supreme Court did not err by admitting into evidence a confidential written agreement winch, by its terms, allowed for its use by the court in condemnation proceedings.

Petitioner’s expert appraiser’s opinion as to damages was not rendered inadmissible due to partial reliance upon outside material which was of the kind ordinarily accepted by experts in the field (see Matter of Jamie R. v Consilvio, 17 AD3d 52, 60 [2005], affd 6 NY3d 138 [2006]; Matter of Chrysler Realty Corp. v Foley, 74 AD2d 847, 848 [1980], appeal dismissed 50 NY2d 928 [1980]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 479, 908 N.Y.S.2d 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-state-development-corp-v-230-west-41st-street-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack