Opinion
November 30, 1970
Appeal by the State from a judgment in favor of claimants, entered March 5, 1969, upon a decision of the Court of Claims. Respondents are the owners of a dairy farm located in the Village of Lexington, Greene County, consisting of a residence, a dairy barn and several other farm structures situated upon 169 acres. The appellant appropriated approximately 9.152 acres in fee of which 7 acres were of tillable land, and the rest was pasture land, together with a permanent easement of .105 acre over tillable land. The appropriation was for a nonaccess highway which bisected the farm, leaving about 18 acres south of the highway and 141 acres to the north. To reach the larger portion with farm machinery and equipment, respondents had to travel over county roads. Respondents contend that the severance severely reduced the value of their farm. Appellant's appraiser allocated no damage to this, assessing consequential damages only for the future need to purchase food or grain or to rent lands as a replacement for the land taken. The trial court found a before value of $35,600 and the after value as $25,825, with total damages of $9,775, of which $2,275 was direct and $7,500 consequential damages to the remaining farm lands and farm buildings. The appellant seeks reversal of the judgment, contending (1) that the trial court did not make a determination of the highest and best after use for the unappropriated remainder, resulting in an insufficient basis for determining after value and consequential damages; (2) that the record contains no substantial evidence of any causal relationship between the appropriation and the extent of the post-appropriation operations of respondent's dairy farm; and (3) that the trial court erroneously computed the after value of the unappropriated remainder by first finding damages and then subtracting the amount of these damages from its before value, instead of just determining the after value. All of these contentions must be rejected. The court clearly found that the highest and best use after the State's appropriation was as a farm. This is made obvious by the court's statement that the circuitous access required following the appropriation, was "not suitable for a reasonably efficient farm operation which was its highest and best use." Nor is there merit in appellant's contention there is no substantial evidence of any causal relationship between the appropriation and the extent of the post-appropriation operations of respondent's dairy farm. The testimony revealed that after the appropriation, only 30 head of cattle could be economically maintained, whereas 51 head of cattle were maintained before the appropriation. Furthermore, the reduction in the efficiency of the farm caused by the taking impaired marketability of the farm buildings and land. The circuity of access required to travel from one part of the farm to the severed portion also impaired the efficiency of the farm operation. Lastly, there is no validity to the contention that the trial court erroneously computed the after value of the unappropriated remainder. The decision of the court stated the amount of the before value to be $35,600, and the amount of the after value to be $25,825, with a resulting damage to the respondents of the sum of $9,775. The decision then set forth the amount allocated to direct damages ($2,275) and the amount allocated to consequential damages to the remaining farm lands and buildings ($7,500). This explanation is adequate and complete. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, P.J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.