Pilon v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pilon v. State

25 A.D.2d 697, 268 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4699

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1966

DocketClaim No. 40910

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 697 (Pilon 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

Pilon v. State, 25 A.D.2d 697, 268 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J. P.

The State appeals and the claimants cross-appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding damages in a land appropriation action. There are no findings of fact or conclusions of law and it is obvious that the court in its deei[698]*698sion used an erroneous amount in determining the after value of the property. It appears to be undisputed that the claimants’ expert found the after value to be $30,348 and the State’s expert $29,500. The court found such value to be $26,500. Determination of the appeal withheld and ease remitted to the Court of Claims for further proceedings not inconsistent with the decision herein. Upon the making of new or additional findings by the Trial Judge, and the filing of the record thereof in this court, the case will be restored to the calendar,

Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Herlihy, J. P.

The State appeals and the claimants cross-appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding damages in a land appropriation action. There are no findings of fact or conclusions of law and it is obvious that the court in its deei[698]*698sion used an erroneous amount in determining the after value of the property. It appears to be undisputed that the claimants’ expert found the after value to be $30,348 and the State’s expert $29,500. The court found such value to be $26,500. Determination of the appeal withheld and ease remitted to the Court of Claims for further proceedings not inconsistent with the decision herein. Upon the making of new or additional findings by the Trial Judge, and the filing of the record thereof in this court, the case will be restored to the calendar,

Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 697, 268 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pilon-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.