From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kingston Urban Renewal Agency v. Strand Prop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 20, 1969
33 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Opinion

October 20, 1969


Appeal from an order of the County Court of Ulster County, entered April 26, 1968, which confirmed a report of commissioners of appraisal which based their award on the value of the land plus the replacement cost of the building thereon less depreciation. Formerly used for a banking institution on the ground floor and for office and loft purposes on the upper two stories, at the time of appropriation the structure was rented to and used by a volunteer social service agency. Defendant's president and sole stockholder, a restauranteur, had thoughts of utilizing the premises as a public eating place. Clearly, the building lacked such uniqueness as to be regarded as a specialty and, in the absence of a clear showing of such a status and no reason having been advanced for reliance solely upon cost, the award could not be predicated solely on land value plus the cost of improvements ( City of Binghamton v. Rosefsky, 29 A.D.2d 820; Levine v. State of New York, 24 A.D.2d 524; Guthmuller v. State of New York, 23 A.D.2d 597). Determinations thus bottomed on an erroneous principle of law must, of course, be rejected ( Matter of Huie [ Fletcher], 2 N.Y.2d 168, 171; Matter of Ford [ Swartwout], 26 A.D.2d 980). Although evidence of reproduction cost less depreciation was admissible as an element or circumstance to be considered along with all other circumstances in arriving at a proper award, it was not admissible as a measure of damages ( Matter of Huie [ Fletcher], supra; Matter of City of New York [ Blackwell's Is. Bridge], 198 N.Y. 84, 88; Evans v. State of New York, 31 A.D.2d 565; Tilo Co. v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 743; New York State Elec. Gas Corp. v. Hotel Gibber, 28 A.D.2d 1042; Bond v. State of New York, 24 A.D.2d 778; 5 Nichols, Eminent Domain [3d ed.], § 20.2 [1]). Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the County Court of Ulster County for remittal to the same or new commissioners of appraisal for further proceedings. Herlihy, P.J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.


Summaries of

Kingston Urban Renewal Agency v. Strand Prop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 20, 1969
33 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
Case details for

Kingston Urban Renewal Agency v. Strand Prop

Case Details

Full title:KINGSTON URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, Appellant, v. STRAND PROPERTIES, INC.…

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

Date published: Oct 20, 1969

Citations

33 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Citing Cases

In re Rochester Urban Renewal Agency

37, 40; Matter of City of New York [Sound View Houses], 307 N.Y. 687; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New…

Passaretti v. State

All of the contentions have been examined and are found to be without merit. The court, basing its…