Serefine v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Serefine v. State

40 A.D.2d 754, 337 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1972

DocketClaim No. 52261

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 754 (Serefine 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

Serefine v. State, 40 A.D.2d 754, 337 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law and facts, in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Claimants offered evidence of an agreement to sell the premises to a third party. No advance notice of this agreement was given to the State. Under the circumstances evidence about the agreement should not have been received. The court permitted some testimony about the agreement but stated “ To be perfectly frank, I won’t consider it ”. Although the court made reference to the agreement in its decision, it noted that the prospective purchaser “ wanted the property only for additional parking space, however, and neither appraiser had considered this use as a potential use for the property ”. The court’s computations indicate that no consideration was given to the agreement to sell. The award of $500 for damages to the sanitary sewer system was clearly not supported by the evidence and is therefore stricken from the judgment. The damages found by the court, which fall within the range of testimony and should be affirmed, are:

The above items total $42,252 and the claimants should have judgment for this amount. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in claim for damages for permanent appropriation.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Marsh, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law and facts, in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Claimants offered evidence of an agreement to sell the premises to a third party. No advance notice of this agreement was given to the State. Under the circumstances evidence about the agreement should not have been received. The court permitted some testimony about the agreement but stated “ To be perfectly frank, I won’t consider it ”. Although the court made reference to the agreement in its decision, it noted that the prospective purchaser “ wanted the property only for additional parking space, however, and neither appraiser had considered this use as a potential use for the property ”. The court’s computations indicate that no consideration was given to the agreement to sell. The award of $500 for damages to the sanitary sewer system was clearly not supported by the evidence and is therefore stricken from the judgment. The damages found by the court, which fall within the range of testimony and should be affirmed, are:

The above items total $42,252 and the claimants should have judgment for this amount. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in claim for damages for permanent appropriation.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Marsh, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 754, 337 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serefine-v-state-nyappdiv-1972.