Wight v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wight v. State

30 A.D.2d 1003, 294 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3111

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1968

DocketClaim No. 46230

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 1003 (Wight 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

Wight v. State, 30 A.D.2d 1003, 294 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims which awarded damages for the appropriation of lands for highway purposes. We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention that claimants’ expert’s opinion evidence was unsupported by relevant proof of comparable sales properly adjusted and we find, upon the entire record, sufficient substantiation of the trial court’s determination, except that its finding of consequential damage was in an amount greater than that to which either expert testified and to the extent of the excess is not otherwise supported by the proof; and, in consequence, must be modified. (Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.], 1 N Y 2d 428, 432-433; Reynolds v. State of New York, 25 A D 2d 466, affd. 19 N Y 2d 654; Dauernheim, Inc. v. State of New York, 29 A D 2d 594.) Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, so as to reduce the award to $27,300 and appropriate interest and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims which awarded damages for the appropriation of lands for highway purposes. We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention that claimants’ expert’s opinion evidence was unsupported by relevant proof of comparable sales properly adjusted and we find, upon the entire record, sufficient substantiation of the trial court’s determination, except that its finding of consequential damage was in an amount greater than that to which either expert testified and to the extent of the excess is not otherwise supported by the proof; and, in consequence, must be modified. (Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.], 1 N Y 2d 428, 432-433; Reynolds v. State of New York, 25 A D 2d 466, affd. 19 N Y 2d 654; Dauernheim, Inc. v. State of New York, 29 A D 2d 594.) Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, so as to reduce the award to $27,300 and appropriate interest and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 1003, 294 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wight-v-state-nyappdiv-1968.