Tilo Co. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tilo Co. v. State

25 A.D.2d 795, 269 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4389

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

DecidedApril 29, 1966

DocketClaim No. 39651

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 795 (Tilo Co. 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

Tilo Co. v. State, 25 A.D.2d 795, 269 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal and cross appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims, awarding claimant damages for the appropriation of its property in the City of Schenectady. A new trial must be ordered in the interests of justice. Claimant’s expert gave no indication via supporting data as to how he arrived at the valuations he reached. As such, his opinion was entitled at most to “little consideration” (Vircillo v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 534; Katz v. State of New York, 10 A D 2d 164). The State’s expert testified as to the market value of the land, as though it were unimproved, and offered proof óf comparable land sales, to which he added the reproduction cost, less depreciation, of the building. The property was not unique or a specialty and thus this method of valuation was not appropriate (Svoboda v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 915; Levine v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 524; Guthmuller v. State of New York, 23 A D 2d 597). Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interests of justice, and a new trial ordered, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal and cross appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims, awarding claimant damages for the appropriation of its property in the City of Schenectady. A new trial must be ordered in the interests of justice. Claimant’s expert gave no indication via supporting data as to how he arrived at the valuations he reached. As such, his opinion was entitled at most to “little consideration” (Vircillo v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 534; Katz v. State of New York, 10 A D 2d 164). The State’s expert testified as to the market value of the land, as though it were unimproved, and offered proof óf comparable land sales, to which he added the reproduction cost, less depreciation, of the building. The property was not unique or a specialty and thus this method of valuation was not appropriate (Svoboda v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 915; Levine v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 524; Guthmuller v. State of New York, 23 A D 2d 597). Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interests of justice, and a new trial ordered, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 795, 269 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tilo-co-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.