From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Homaid Brands, Inc. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 17, 1967
28 A.D.2d 1174 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

November 17, 1967


MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims which awarded damages for the appropriation of lands for highway purposes. No basis appears for disputing the trial court's explicit statements that its evaluaions of the property were those obtaining on the taking date and that its determination gave consideration and effect to the proof as to the cost of compliance with the health regulations invoked by the municipality. Neither can we say that the 55% depreciation rate applied to the structures was inadequate under the circumstances. The land valuations found, including the unit values applied in fixing consequential damages to certain lands remaining, were within the range of the testimony and we find no reason to disturb them. The State's appraiser found the reproduction cost of the buildings to be approximately $90,500 (inclusive of fixtures) which he depreciated to $22,800. As he assigned a cost of $29,800 to the fixtures, his buildings cost was $60,700. Claimant's appraiser testified to buildings cost of $80,050 (exclusive of fixtures) which he depreciated to $58,659, to which he added cost of fixtures, after depreciation, of $13,548. The court found buildings cost of $90,500 (this sum exceeding the State's and claimant's evaluations of $60,700 and $80,050, respectively) to which the court applied a depreciation rate of 55% to arrive at a net of $40,725, to which it added the cost, after depreciation, of fixtures in amount $7,500, for a total of $48,225; neither the court nor the claimant's appraiser indicating the base cost of the fixtures or the depreciation rate applied. This portion of the award must be reduced from $48,225 to $43,500, representing buildings cost, after 55% depreciation, $36,000, plus depreciated fixture costs, $7,500. The implicit finding that the property was a specialty is not contested. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, so as to reduce the award to $63,304.35 and appropriate interest, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.


Summaries of

Homaid Brands, Inc. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 17, 1967
28 A.D.2d 1174 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

Homaid Brands, Inc. v. State

Case Details

Full title:HOMAID BRANDS, INC., Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim…

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

Date published: Nov 17, 1967

Citations

28 A.D.2d 1174 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)