Tilo Co. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tilo Co. v. State

30 A.D.2d 743, 291 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597

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

DecidedJune 27, 1968

DocketClaim No. 39651

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 743 (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, 30 A.D.2d 743, 291 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Gabrielli, J.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims in a highway appropriation case entered March 17, 1968, which was previously remitted by us for a new trial (see 25 A D 2d 795, in which the essential facts appear). The State now questions the award on the ground that claimant’s expert testimony as to value based upon reproduction cost less depreciation is not appropriate. If this testimony were the sole basis [744]*744for the award made, the State’s objection would be well founded for the property was neither unique nor a specialty. (See Svoboda v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 915; Guthmuller v. State of New York, 23 A D 2d 597.) However, it appears that the expert produced by the claimant testified to value by using the income approach, reproduction cost less depreciation and by using comparable sales; but that to arrive at his final estimate as to value, he used the comparable sales to “ crystalize ” his final opinion. The evidence presented a range of testimony which warranted the determination of the court in fixing the award herein. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J.

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

Gabrielli, J.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims in a highway appropriation case entered March 17, 1968, which was previously remitted by us for a new trial (see 25 A D 2d 795, in which the essential facts appear). The State now questions the award on the ground that claimant’s expert testimony as to value based upon reproduction cost less depreciation is not appropriate. If this testimony were the sole basis [744]*744for the award made, the State’s objection would be well founded for the property was neither unique nor a specialty. (See Svoboda v. State of New York, 24 A D 2d 915; Guthmuller v. State of New York, 23 A D 2d 597.) However, it appears that the expert produced by the claimant testified to value by using the income approach, reproduction cost less depreciation and by using comparable sales; but that to arrive at his final estimate as to value, he used the comparable sales to “ crystalize ” his final opinion. The evidence presented a range of testimony which warranted the determination of the court in fixing the award herein. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 743, 291 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tilo-co-v-state-nyappdiv-1968.