From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Done Holding Co. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 1991
169 A.D.2d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

January 28, 1991

Appeal from the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding the claimant an additional allowance pursuant to EDPL 701. The State initially offered $52,300 for the property in question. At the trial, however, the State offered proof that the appropriated site had a value of $204,000. The court determined that the claimant was entitled to an award of $344,000, plus interest. On appeal, this court adjusted the claimant's before-interest award to $377,300 (Done Holding Co. v State of New York, 144 A.D.2d 528). The trial court therefore properly concluded that the award was substantially in excess of the amount initially offered to the claimant by the State (see, EDPL 701; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. [Superior Reed Rattan Furniture Co.], 160 A.D.2d 705). In addition, the trial court properly gave retroactive effect to the amendment, effective August 7, 1987, to EDPL 701 (see, Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. [Superior Reed Rattan Furniture Co.], supra; Matter of City of New York [Long Is. Sound Realty Co.], 160 A.D.2d 696; Matter of Town of Esopus [Gordon], 143 Misc.2d 193, affd 162 A.D.2d 829). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Done Holding Co. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 1991
169 A.D.2d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Done Holding Co. v. State

Case Details

Full title:DONE HOLDING COMPANY, Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 28, 1991

Citations

169 A.D.2d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
565 N.Y.S.2d 178

Citing Cases

Matter of Transit Auth

In determining whether the award is substantially more than the condemnor's proof, this court must utilize…

TKGSM-NY, LLC v. N.Y. State Urban Dev. Corp.

In determining whether the award is substantially more than the condemnor's proof, this court must measure…