Vangellow v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vangellow v. State

41 A.D.2d 1017, 343 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4441

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

DecidedMay 18, 1973

DocketClaim No. 50871

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 1017 (Vangellow 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

Vangellow v. State, 41 A.D.2d 1017, 343 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: There is no evidence in the record that claimants’ building was unique or a specialty which would only produce income when used in conjunction with claimants’ business; hence the sole use by the court, of reproduction costs minus depreciation in arriving at building value was error as a matter of law (Rochester Smelting & Refining Co. v. State of New York, 38 A D 2d 674 and cases cited therein). There is not sufficient evidence in the record for this court to make new findings as to damages with respect to the building improvements. Claimants’ appraiser did not use the income approach; hence, he provided no comparable rents for capitalization. His one whole-to-whole comparable to support the market data approach cannot sustain the award. The State’s appraiser did not use sufficiently suitable comparable rents or sales in his income and market data approach to permit a fair determination of value. In view of the state of the existing record a new trial is required. (Appeals from judgment of Court of Claims, in claim for damages for permanent appropriation.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecehio, Marsh, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: There is no evidence in the record that claimants’ building was unique or a specialty which would only produce income when used in conjunction with claimants’ business; hence the sole use by the court, of reproduction costs minus depreciation in arriving at building value was error as a matter of law (Rochester Smelting & Refining Co. v. State of New York, 38 A D 2d 674 and cases cited therein). There is not sufficient evidence in the record for this court to make new findings as to damages with respect to the building improvements. Claimants’ appraiser did not use the income approach; hence, he provided no comparable rents for capitalization. His one whole-to-whole comparable to support the market data approach cannot sustain the award. The State’s appraiser did not use sufficiently suitable comparable rents or sales in his income and market data approach to permit a fair determination of value. In view of the state of the existing record a new trial is required. (Appeals from judgment of Court of Claims, in claim for damages for permanent appropriation.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecehio, Marsh, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 1017, 343 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vangellow-v-state-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack