From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kendall v. County of Dutchess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1987
130 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

May 4, 1987


Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed, with costs.

Contrary to the condemnees' contention, the finding that the proposed acquisition will serve a "public use, benefit or purpose" (EDPL 204 [B] [1]) is amply supported by testimony that the improvement of the intersection of Baker Road and Beekman Road in the Town of Beekman is necessary for the safety of motorists using those roads.

Furthermore, the condemnees' claim that a public hearing on the proposed acquisition failed to conform to the Federal and State Constitutions (see, EDPL 207 [C] [1]) as a result of the alleged bias of the Commissioner of Public Works, finds no support in the record. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kendall v. County of Dutchess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1987
130 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Kendall v. County of Dutchess

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT C. KENDALL et al., Petitioners, v. COUNTY OF DUTCHESS, Respondent

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

Date published: May 4, 1987

Citations

130 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

49 WB, LLC v. Village of Haverstraw

Based upon the foregoing principles, appellate courts have upheld the exercise of eminent domain for a…

Matter of Waldo's, Inc. v. Village of Johnson City

It is also apparent that respondent had sufficient statutory authorization for this public/private…