New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Schiener

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Schiener

60 A.D.2d 981, 401 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10050

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1978

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 981 (New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Schiener) 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 Electric & Gas Corp. v. Schiener, 60 A.D.2d 981, 401 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Although the referee made an erroneous statement that the defendant had the burden to prove that plaintiff did not bargain in good faith (Matter of Lockport & Buffalo R. R., 77 NY 557, 563; Matter of Marsh, 71 NY 315, 318-319; Matter of Bronx Parkway Comm. [Cipolla], 176 App Div 717, 720-721; Golowich v Union Free School Dist. No. 8, Town of Greenburgh, 25 Misc 2d 867, 872-873), we read his decision as recognizing that plaintiff had that burden and had established prima facie case of bargaining in good faith for these properties, and that defendants failed to meet their ensuing burden of going forward to overcome such proof. The record shows that plaintiff made offers to each of the defendants or their authorized representatives and were sternly rebuffed, either with an absolute refusal to negotiate or with such an exorbitant demand as to be tantamount to refusal; and this evidence made its prima facie case of bargaining in good faith (see Matter of Prospect Park & Coney Is. R. R. Co., 67 NY 371, 377-378; County of Orange v Stillman, 251 App Div 857, 858; Dormitory Auth. of State of N. Y. v 59th St. & 10th Ave. Realty Corp., 62 Misc 2d 174, 178-179; City of Utica v Damiano, 22 Misc 2d 804, 809). The easement sought by plaintiff was definite, minimizing the likelihood of consequential damages, and the principle controlling in Kravec v State of New York (40 NY2d 1060) is not applicable herein (see Lorig v State of New York, 58 AD2d 734, 735). We do not hold that the issue of failure to bargain in good faith with respect to consequential damages can never be raised in a jurisdictional proceeding. In order to avoid frustrating [982]*982the policy of law against undue delay in condemnation proceedings, however, we suggest that only where defendant’s refusal to agree is based upon a substantial showing of consequential damages and his reasonable estimate of the value thereof, should that issue be injected into the jurisdictional proceeding. Of course, the issue of consequential damages can still be litigated later before the commissioners of appraisal (see Home Gas Co. v Kuruc, 206 Misc 130, 135-136). (Appeal from order and judgment of Erie Supreme Court—condemnation.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Although the referee made an erroneous statement that the defendant had the burden to prove that plaintiff did not bargain in good faith (Matter of Lockport & Buffalo R. R., 77 NY 557, 563; Matter of Marsh, 71 NY 315, 318-319; Matter of Bronx Parkway Comm. [Cipolla], 176 App Div 717, 720-721; Golowich v Union Free School Dist. No. 8, Town of Greenburgh, 25 Misc 2d 867, 872-873), we read his decision as recognizing that plaintiff had that burden and had established prima facie case of bargaining in good faith for these properties, and that defendants failed to meet their ensuing burden of going forward to overcome such proof. The record shows that plaintiff made offers to each of the defendants or their authorized representatives and were sternly rebuffed, either with an absolute refusal to negotiate or with such an exorbitant demand as to be tantamount to refusal; and this evidence made its prima facie case of bargaining in good faith (see Matter of Prospect Park & Coney Is. R. R. Co., 67 NY 371, 377-378; County of Orange v Stillman, 251 App Div 857, 858; Dormitory Auth. of State of N. Y. v 59th St. & 10th Ave. Realty Corp., 62 Misc 2d 174, 178-179; City of Utica v Damiano, 22 Misc 2d 804, 809). The easement sought by plaintiff was definite, minimizing the likelihood of consequential damages, and the principle controlling in Kravec v State of New York (40 NY2d 1060) is not applicable herein (see Lorig v State of New York, 58 AD2d 734, 735). We do not hold that the issue of failure to bargain in good faith with respect to consequential damages can never be raised in a jurisdictional proceeding. In order to avoid frustrating [982]*982the policy of law against undue delay in condemnation proceedings, however, we suggest that only where defendant’s refusal to agree is based upon a substantial showing of consequential damages and his reasonable estimate of the value thereof, should that issue be injected into the jurisdictional proceeding. Of course, the issue of consequential damages can still be litigated later before the commissioners of appraisal (see Home Gas Co. v Kuruc, 206 Misc 130, 135-136). (Appeal from order and judgment of Erie Supreme Court—condemnation.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 981, 401 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-state-electric-gas-corp-v-schiener-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack