Opinion
July 20, 1970
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in Tompkins County on November 21, 1969, which confirmed the report of the Commissioners of Appraisal herein. The City of Ithaca, on behalf of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, condemned property owned by respondent Ray and designated as 113-115 South Tioga Street, Ithaca. The real property was improved by a two-story building. The Commissioners awarded respondent $70,000. Respondent then moved to confirm the report of the Commissioners; appellant cross-moved to set aside the report and remit the matter to new Commissioners; and Special Term confirmed the Commissioners' report. Appellant raises several objections. These objections must be considered in light of the law applicable to awards made by Commissioners. Under the law Commissioners are given a wide latitude in arriving at their determination. ( Matter of Thompson, 121 N.Y. 277.) They are also required to view the premises and may use information obtained therefrom. As long as their determination finds support in the record, they have the right to rely on their own judgment and experience and are not bound by the opinions of expert witnesses. ( Matter of Huie [ Fletcher-City of New York], 2 N.Y.2d 168, 171.) Applying these general principles to the instant case, we find no merit to any of appellant's objections, and conclude that the evidence in this record is legally sufficient to sustain the award. The award of an additional allowance of 5% of the amount awarded was discretionary with the court, and, in our opinion, was justified in this case. (Condemnation Law, § 16; see City of Troy v. Manufacturers Nat. Bank, 30 A.D.2d 889, 890.) One issue raised, however, necessitates specific analysis by us. Special Term allowed interest on the award at the rate of 6% from August 1, 1966. The Legislature has determined that such awards are entitled to 6% interest as of July 25, 1969 (General Municipal Law, § 3-a, subd. 2, as amd. by L. 1969, ch. 1102). Consequently, from that date on, there can be no question that the award must draw interest at the rate of 6%. The controversial aspect of the award is Special Term's allowance of 6% prior to that date. Both the United States and New York State Constitutions provide for just compensation when private property is taken for public use. (U.S. Const., 5th Amdt.; N.Y. Const., art. I, § 7.) Once the municipality takes possession of the property it is indebted to its owner in a sum equal to this "just compensation". Implicit is an additional sum reflected by an interest rate commensurate with the existing economic conditions. The State by statute provides for interest in addition to the award. In August of 1966 the State Finance Law was amended to increase the interest to 6% on State land appropriations (State Finance Law, § 16, as amd. by L. 1966, ch. 921). It is difficult for us, being aware of the economic conditions, to see any distinction in lands taken by the State and those taken by a municipality. We think equity requires that there be no such distinction, and that respondent should be entitled to 6%. (See Matter of City of New York [ Manhattan Civic Center Area], 57 Misc.2d 156, affd. 32 A.D.2d 530.) Order affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J.P., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.