Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v. Hammer Lithograph
This text of 73 A.D.2d 1044 (Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v. Hammer Lithograph) 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.
Opinion
Order and judgment unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: This appeal arises from a condemnation proceeding brought by Rochester Urban Renewal Agency to acquire certain real property owned by the Hammer Lithograph Corporation. The court below [1045]*1045granted Hammer Lithograph a total award of $160,894, and an additional allowance of $6,435.76 for costs. We affirm the award but note that, in computing the total amount, the court made a mathematical error. The total award, as corrected, is $160,864. The additional allowance granted by the court of 4% of the total award should be modified upward to 5% of the award (see Condemnation Law, § 16, subd [2]). In view of the purpose of this allowance to defray the expenses which an owner incurs in establishing the value of his property (New York State Urban Dev. Corp. v Goldfeld, 54 AD2d 1099; Matter of Dodge v Tierney, 40 AD2d 936) and, in view of the substantial expenses Hammer Lithograph has incurred, the court abused its discretion by failing to grant the full 5% allowance (see Matter of Speach v Smith, 53 AD2d 1024). (Appeal from order and judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—condemnation.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Moule, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
73 A.D.2d 1044, 425 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rochester-urban-renewal-agency-v-hammer-lithograph-nyappdiv-1980.