Nuccitelli v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nuccitelli v. State

25 A.D.2d 700, 268 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4703

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1966

DocketClaim No. 40726

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 700 (Nuccitelli 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

Nuccitelli v. State, 25 A.D.2d 700, 268 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court. In this appropriation case involving premises improved by a ranch-type dwelling which was neither unique nor a specialty, the evidence necessarily relied upon by the trial court was adduced from claimants’ expert witness who testified as to the value of the land and evaluated the building prior to the appropriation solely on the basis of reproduction cost less depreciation. The State’s expert used in part the same erroneous theory, as well as the proper market approach. In similar circumstances we have held that fairness required a new trial. (Guthmuller v. State of New York, 23 A D 2d 597; Levine v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 524; Svoboda v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 915.) Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interest of justice, without costs, and a new trial ordered.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, J J., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court. In this appropriation case involving premises improved by a ranch-type dwelling which was neither unique nor a specialty, the evidence necessarily relied upon by the trial court was adduced from claimants’ expert witness who testified as to the value of the land and evaluated the building prior to the appropriation solely on the basis of reproduction cost less depreciation. The State’s expert used in part the same erroneous theory, as well as the proper market approach. In similar circumstances we have held that fairness required a new trial. (Guthmuller v. State of New York, 23 A D 2d 597; Levine v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 524; Svoboda v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 915.) Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interest of justice, without costs, and a new trial ordered.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, J J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 700, 268 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nuccitelli-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.