Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Ritter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Ritter

24 A.D.2d 1034, 264 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2884

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 1034 (Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Ritter) 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

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Ritter, 24 A.D.2d 1034, 264 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

Assuming arguendo that proof of sales to the utility were improperly received, the error does not, upon this record, warrant reversal. The remaining evidence, including that of other sales received without objection, sufficiently sustains the award. (Hopkins v. State of New York, 276 App. Div. 945; Municipal Housing Auth. for City of Yonkers v. Adels, 116 N. Y. S. 2d 707 [Eager, J.]; [1035]*1035Kogut v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 928.) We fiad unfounded appellant’s contention that the award comprehends damages for the frustration of an unexecuted plan of improvement merely; and consider that the damage could properly be, and was measured according to the most advantageous use to which the property could bo put and in the light of its prospective use, according to the testimony, largely uncontradicted, which the Commissioners were entitled to accept (Hazard Lewis Farms v. State of New York, 1 A D 2d 923; Matter of City of New York [State Ice Mfg. Corp.], 213 App. Div. 187, 190.) Order affirmed, with costs to respondent. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

Assuming arguendo that proof of sales to the utility were improperly received, the error does not, upon this record, warrant reversal. The remaining evidence, including that of other sales received without objection, sufficiently sustains the award. (Hopkins v. State of New York, 276 App. Div. 945; Municipal Housing Auth. for City of Yonkers v. Adels, 116 N. Y. S. 2d 707 [Eager, J.]; [1035]*1035Kogut v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 928.) We fiad unfounded appellant’s contention that the award comprehends damages for the frustration of an unexecuted plan of improvement merely; and consider that the damage could properly be, and was measured according to the most advantageous use to which the property could bo put and in the light of its prospective use, according to the testimony, largely uncontradicted, which the Commissioners were entitled to accept (Hazard Lewis Farms v. State of New York, 1 A D 2d 923; Matter of City of New York [State Ice Mfg. Corp.], 213 App. Div. 187, 190.) Order affirmed, with costs to respondent. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 1034, 264 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niagara-mohawk-power-corp-v-ritter-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack