Roth v. State

4 Misc. 2d 390, 159 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3623
CourtNew York Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 25, 1957
DocketClaim No. 33390; Claim No. 33391
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 Misc. 2d 390 (Roth v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roth v. State, 4 Misc. 2d 390, 159 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3623 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1957).

Opinion

Richard S. Heller, J.

These two claims to recover damages for the appropriation of property were tried together. The evidence presented applies in large part to both cases.

[392]*392On November 18, 1953 the State filed appropriation maps taking permanent easements for flood control purposes, for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of walls, stream channel, conduit, work area, drainage, public and private utilities and appurtenances to all structures. There was reserved to the owner of the property the right to use the property provided the use in the opinion of the Superintendent of Public Works does not interfere with or prevent the use of and exercise of the rights appropriated. The permanent easements constituted a strip about 26 feet wide running in a southwesterly direction from a street then known as Erie Avenue but now known as Denison Parkway. The easterly line of the easements involved in these claims commences at a point in the south line of Denison Parkway about 60 feet west of the intersection of Denison Parkway and Pine Street and runs diagonally to a point in the south line of a public alley lying 165 feet south of Denison Parkway, which point is about 208 feet west of the west line of Pine Street.

The permanent easements include parts of lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 of block 65 as shown on a map of Corning made by Brewer and Canfield in 1855 and filed in the Steuben County Clerk’s office. Each of these lots as shown on that map had a frontage of about 63 feet on Denison Parkway and a depth of 165 feet abutting on a public alley with lot No. 8 having its depth running south on the west line of Pine Street.

At the time of the taking these lots were largely unimproved. A gas station was located at the northerly end of lot No. 6. On the southerly half of lots 7 and 8 there was an old opera house building which had not been used for a great many years. On the northerly portion of lot No. 8 at the southwest corner of Denison Parkway and Pine Street there was a three-story building occupied by stores on the first floor and offices on the upper floor which had been remodelled several years previously. The northerly portion of lot No. 7 was used for parking.

In 1953, Erie Avenue consisted of a west bound lane north of a railroad double track right of way and an east bound lane south of the railroad right of way. On the north side of the street opposite block 65 there was a newspaper building and an old hotel.

Arthur M. Lee and Harry J. Cox, one of claimants’ witnesses herein, were associated primarily as chain store leasing brokers engaged in finding suitable locations for such large chain organizations as W. T. Grant Company, F. W. Woolworth & Company, J. C. Penny Company, etc. The retail shopping district in Corning was located on Market Street, one block north [393]*393of Brie Avenue, and the locations available there were generally limited to a depth of 70 feet. About 1948, Lee and Cox went to Corning in an effort to find locations with a greater depth suitable for chain store operations as a result of inquiries by several such chain store organizations.

About 1951, the property along Erie Avenue was rezoned and there were definite indications that the railroad tracks running along Erie Avenue would be removed. In view of this situation Lee and Cox decided that the most logical area for commercial development was the northerly portion of block 65, the primary considerations being the depth of 165 feet, proximity of the area to the intersection of Pine Street and Market Street and the lack of any substantial building development in the area.

On August 9, 1951 they obtained an option on lot No. 6. On May 3, 1952 they obtained an option on lot No. 4 and a portion of lot No. 3 and on July 24, 1952, they obtained an option on all of lots 3 and 4. On August 13, 1952 an option was obtained on lot No. 5. On April 20, 1953 they obtained an option on the north half of lots 7 and 8. On May 13, 1953 title to lot No. 5 was conveyed to Lee.

This gave them title to or the right to purchase a plot at the southwest corner of Pine and Erie Avenue with the frontage on Erie Avenue of 126 feet and a depth along Pine Street of 82% feet and an abutting plot on the west having a frontage on Erie Avenue of about 252 feet and a depth of 165 feet.

In August, 1953 a lease agreement was made between W. T. Grant Company and Lehigh Beal Estate Corporation which Mr. Cox described as a corporation controlled by Lee and Cox. This lease agreement provided for the rental of a plot of land having a frontage on Erie Avenue of 70 feet and a depth of 165 feet. It recited that as an inducement to the lease, the landlord represented that a chain store tenant subject to the approval of W. T. Grant Company would enter into a noncancellable lease for a term of at least 10 years covering a new building with dimensions of 65 feet by 165 feet to be erected by the landlord adjoining the demised premises on the west and the landlord was required to commence the erection of such a building prior to April 1, 1954. It also recited as an inducement that the landlord would erect four store units for retail mercantile purposes having an aggregate frontage of 115 lineal feet along the south side of Erie Avenue, east of the demised premises. The lease agreement provided for an annual rental of $2,700 per year to commence September 1, 1954 or six months after landlord commenced construction of the building west of the demised plot, whichever was earlier. It also provided for additional rent [394]*394described as 6% of the cost of the erection of a building on the lot demised to W. T. Grant Company, which cost was to be paid by the landlord except that the payment by the landlord was not to exceed $320,000 and the additional rent to be paid by the tenant was not to exceed $19,200. The additional rent was to commence upon payment of sums by the landlord. The tenant was required to pay all taxes and assessments and to keep the property insured.

The title to lot 5 was transferred by Lee to Sagamore Syndicate, Inc., on August 5,1954 and title to lot No. 6 was conveyed by Emil R. Stasch, Jr., and Bertha D. Stasch, the apparent record owners at the time of the taking, to Sagamore Syndicate, Inc., on August 16, 1954, Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 were conveyed by Sagamore Syndicate, Inc., to the claimant Mae Tañer by deed dated March 28, 1955. The right to receive compensation for the appropriation of property was assigned to the claimant Mae Tañer by the prior owners.

The southerly halves of lots 7 and 8 were conveyed to the Lehigh Real Estate Corporation by Schine Realty Corporation by deed dated April 25, 1955 and were subsequently conveyed by Lehigh Real Estate Corporation to the claimant Augusta Roth by deed dated April 29, 1955. The northerly halves of Lots 7 and 8 were conveyed by Corning Building Company, Inc., to the claimant Augusta Roth by deed dated May 4, 1955. All rights to receive compensation for the appropriation of property were assigned to the claimant Augusta Roth by the prior owners.

The permanent easements taken are so broad as to require the conclusion that so far as these claims are concerned the property is divided into two parts by the taking. The court has viewed the premises and while in fact the permanent easements have been utilized for the installation of a conduit carrying Monkey Run Creek underground with an unbroken surface there is no requirement that the State maintain the conduit in that form.

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

Related

King v. State
50 Misc. 2d 337 (New York State Court of Claims, 1966)
Taner v. State
7 A.D.2d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Misc. 2d 390, 159 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-state-nyclaimsct-1957.