From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conklin v. State of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 20, 1975
343 N.E.2d 755 (N.Y. 1975)

Opinion

Argued October 22, 1975

Decided November 20, 1975

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, ADOLPH C. ORLANDO, J.

Joseph Lite, P.C., for appellant. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Joseph F. Gibbons and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

Generally, a lessee is entitled to recover the value of fixtures placed by him on the condemned property, when he is entitled to remove them at the expiration of the lease (Marraro v State of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 285). On the record before us, we cannot conclude that claimant has met his burden of establishing his ownership of the fixtures at the date of the appropriation and the liability of the State to him. The record reveals that the fixtures were not on the condemned property at the time of the appropriation and, hence, there is no proof of a taking by the State.

The scope of our review here is limited to the determination that there is evidence in the record supporting the finding by the Appellate Division that claimant failed to establish his ownership of the property. (See Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], § 108, p 452.) Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Conklin v. State of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 20, 1975
343 N.E.2d 755 (N.Y. 1975)
Case details for

Conklin v. State of New York

Case Details

Full title:NORBERT B. CONKLIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Claim…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 20, 1975

Citations

343 N.E.2d 755 (N.Y. 1975)
343 N.E.2d 755
381 N.Y.S.2d 37

Citing Cases

Schwartzberg v. State

(See Anrad Constr. Corp. v State of New York, 47 Misc.2d 998; Murray v State of New York, 202 App. Div. 597,…

Mobil Health v. State

Case law has held this type of defect, if it be one at all, not to be one of subject matter jurisdiction and…