Pitt v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pitt v. State

27 A.D.2d 598

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1966

DocketClaim No. 39958

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 598 (Pitt 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

Pitt v. State, 27 A.D.2d 598 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal by claimants from a judgment of the Court of Claims based on an award of $56,500 for the partial appropriation for highway purposes of resort property located in the Village of Fleistihmanns, Delaware County, New York. The claimants were the owners of approximately 180 acres of land with several buildings thereon and, since 1947, had been operating the same as a Summer resort. On March 15, 1962, the State appropriated approximately 3.76 acres of the claimants' land, on which there [599]*599were situated a tennis court, a swimming pool, a soda or snack bar, a recreation building, patios, walks, the pool’s water supply system and springboard, and a portion of the private road leading into .the premises. This appeal is based solely upon the .contention that the award is inadequate, and the only relief sought by the appellants is that the award be increased to conform to the valid evidence. On reviewing the evidence, however, we are brought to the inescapable conclusion that there is no basis in the evidence which would warrant our increasing the award of the court below. An increase in an award must be based on adequate evidence establishing the award as being- clearly inadequate. (Katz v. State of New York, 10 A D 2d 164.) Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Brink, JJ., concur with ¡Staley, Jr., J.

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

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal by claimants from a judgment of the Court of Claims based on an award of $56,500 for the partial appropriation for highway purposes of resort property located in the Village of Fleistihmanns, Delaware County, New York. The claimants were the owners of approximately 180 acres of land with several buildings thereon and, since 1947, had been operating the same as a Summer resort. On March 15, 1962, the State appropriated approximately 3.76 acres of the claimants' land, on which there [599]*599were situated a tennis court, a swimming pool, a soda or snack bar, a recreation building, patios, walks, the pool’s water supply system and springboard, and a portion of the private road leading into .the premises. This appeal is based solely upon the .contention that the award is inadequate, and the only relief sought by the appellants is that the award be increased to conform to the valid evidence. On reviewing the evidence, however, we are brought to the inescapable conclusion that there is no basis in the evidence which would warrant our increasing the award of the court below. An increase in an award must be based on adequate evidence establishing the award as being- clearly inadequate. (Katz v. State of New York, 10 A D 2d 164.) Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Brink, JJ., concur with ¡Staley, Jr., J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitt-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.