Tebor v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tebor v. State

92 A.D.2d 749, 461 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17075

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1983

DocketClaim No. 62216

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 A.D.2d 749 (Tebor 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

Tebor v. State, 92 A.D.2d 749, 461 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In this appropriation proceeding, the trial court acted within its discretion in reopening the case, before decision, for the receipt of further evidence concerning the suitability of substitute access (8 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 59.27). The award for consequential damages was proper since it was based upon the court’s determination that the substitute means of access was unsuitable for the highest and best use of the property and not merely circuitous (Priestly v State of New York, 23 NY2d 152; Beh v State of New York, 56 NY2d 576, 578, revg on dissent at 81 AD2d 744). Finally, we find no error in the award of consequential damages for the cost of a new waterline along the right of way to service the remaining property. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims, Quigley, J. — appropriation.) Present •— Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In this appropriation proceeding, the trial court acted within its discretion in reopening the case, before decision, for the receipt of further evidence concerning the suitability of substitute access (8 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 59.27). The award for consequential damages was proper since it was based upon the court’s determination that the substitute means of access was unsuitable for the highest and best use of the property and not merely circuitous (Priestly v State of New York, 23 NY2d 152; Beh v State of New York, 56 NY2d 576, 578, revg on dissent at 81 AD2d 744). Finally, we find no error in the award of consequential damages for the cost of a new waterline along the right of way to service the remaining property. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims, Quigley, J. — appropriation.) Present •— Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 749, 461 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tebor-v-state-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack