Home/New York Court of Appeals/Van Kleeck v. State

Van Kleeck v. State

223 N.E.2d 41, 18 N.Y.2d 897, 276 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 970
New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 29, 1966·No. Claim 39285·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

*899 Memorandum. The order appealed from should be modified (see Cornell v. T. V. Development Corp., 17 N Y 2d 69, 73). Since the property was valued on a commercial basis, no value should have been assigned to the buildings on the property, which were inconsistent with that use (Matter of Erlanger, 237 N. Y. 159, 164; Spano v. State of New York, 22 A D 2d 757). Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division is modified to the extent of striking therefrom so much as awards $15,000 for the buildings and, as modified, the order is affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Yan Voorhis, Burke, Soileppi, Bergan and Keating concur.

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs.

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

Van Kleeck v. State, 223 N.E.2d 41, 18 N.Y.2d 897, 276 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 970 (N.Y. 1966).

223 N.E.2d 41 (Van Kleeck v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re West Bushwick Urban Renewal Area, Phase 2
70 A.D.3d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re West Bushwick Urban Renewal Area
69 A.D.3d 176 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re City of New York
20 Misc. 3d 179 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
In re Town of Hempstead
81 A.D.2d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Zeitlin v. State
60 A.D.2d 723 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
In re the County of Suffolk
58 A.D.2d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Kaufman v. State
57 A.D.2d 1025 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)