Ruston v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruston v. State

25 A.D.2d 944, 270 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4207

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

DecidedMay 19, 1966

DocketClaim No. 40516

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 944 (Ruston 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

Ruston v. State, 25 A.D.2d 944, 270 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with the memorandum, and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Certain finding of fact and conclusion of law disapproved and reversed and new findings made. Memorandum: Prior to the appropriation, claimant had no right of access to the property taken. What access he had was by the sufferance or tolerance of the State and subject to termination at any time at the will of the State. (Splittorf v. State of New York, 108 N. Y. 205; Hall v. State of New York, 173 Misc. 903, affd. 265 App. Div. 1037; Watson v. Empire Eng. Corp., 77 Misc. 543.) The best proof of value from the claimant’s viewpoint was the approximate amount that he paid for the property, $1,500. From this should be deducted the sum of $100, the value of the unappropriated property, leaving $1,400 as direct damage. luere was no consequential damage. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims for claimant on a claim for permanent appropriation of realty.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with the memorandum, and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Certain finding of fact and conclusion of law disapproved and reversed and new findings made. Memorandum: Prior to the appropriation, claimant had no right of access to the property taken. What access he had was by the sufferance or tolerance of the State and subject to termination at any time at the will of the State. (Splittorf v. State of New York, 108 N. Y. 205; Hall v. State of New York, 173 Misc. 903, affd. 265 App. Div. 1037; Watson v. Empire Eng. Corp., 77 Misc. 543.) The best proof of value from the claimant’s viewpoint was the approximate amount that he paid for the property, $1,500. From this should be deducted the sum of $100, the value of the unappropriated property, leaving $1,400 as direct damage. luere was no consequential damage. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims for claimant on a claim for permanent appropriation of realty.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 944, 270 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruston-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack