Nicolay v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicolay v. State

38 A.D.2d 611, 326 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2884

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1971

DocketClaim No. 48223

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 611 (Nicolay v. State) 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

Nicolay v. State, 38 A.D.2d 611, 326 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment entered February 3, 1970 upon a decision of the Court of Claims, which awarded the sum of $25,000 to the claimants. Appellant’s position, that the award cannot stand since it was based on respondents’ appraisal which is devoid of probativé value, is well taken. Respondents’ appraiser calculated the value of the residence solely by the cost approach method which was clearly erroneous since the building was not a specialty. Furthermore, his valuation of the land, although allegedly based on comparable sales, was discredited by his own admission that many of the sales used were dissimilar from the subject premises; that he had made no adjustments between the sales. Finally, the court did not sufficiently explain the basis of its decision. (Ridgeway Assoc. v. State of New York, 32 .A D 2d 851.) A new trial is therefore mandated. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and a new trial ordered. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment entered February 3, 1970 upon a decision of the Court of Claims, which awarded the sum of $25,000 to the claimants. Appellant’s position, that the award cannot stand since it was based on respondents’ appraisal which is devoid of probativé value, is well taken. Respondents’ appraiser calculated the value of the residence solely by the cost approach method which was clearly erroneous since the building was not a specialty. Furthermore, his valuation of the land, although allegedly based on comparable sales, was discredited by his own admission that many of the sales used were dissimilar from the subject premises; that he had made no adjustments between the sales. Finally, the court did not sufficiently explain the basis of its decision. (Ridgeway Assoc. v. State of New York, 32 .A D 2d 851.) A new trial is therefore mandated. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and a new trial ordered. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 611, 326 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicolay-v-state-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack