Opinion
November 17, 1967
Appeal by the State of New York from a judgment of the Court of Claims which awarded damages to the respondent by reason of the appropriation of part of his land by the State for highway purposes in the Town of Chenango, County of Broome. Claimant was the owner in fee of a parcel of land containing about 29.5 acres on the east side of Route 11 in the Town of Chenango, County of Broome, New York. On January 14, 1965 the State appropriated 1.7 acres of said premises for the relocation of Route 11, the appropriated area resulting in Route 11 being relocated about 11 feet east of the claimant's residence. The relocation of the highway resulted in 402 feet of new frontage on the east side of the new highway. The claimant's expert testified to a before value of $26,181, and an after value figure of $11,677. He determined direct damages to be $4,468, and consequential damages to be $10,936 to which he added $50 as the rental value of a temporary easement and deducted $900 as a benefit derived by reason of the new frontage to arrive at total damages of $14,554. The State's expert testified to a before value of $28,500 and an after value of $22,000. He found direct damages to be $4,850 and consequential damages of $5,650 from which he subtracted $4,000 as a benefit derived from the new frontage and added $10 as the rental value of the temporary easement to arrive at total damages of $6,510. The trial court found the before value of the property to be $24,000 and the after value to be $12,000. The damages were broken down into $4,500 for direct damages and $7,500 for consequential damages, and an additional sum of $30 was awarded for the temporary easement, making a total award of $12,030. We find no merit in appellant's contention that the trial court did not offset the benefits accruing to claimant from the new frontage against his consequential damage, since the court expressly stated: "The taking has created 402 ± feet of new road frontage to the east of the new highway and the Court has considered this factor in arriving at an after value"; and we have examined appellant's additional contentions and find none of them substantial or of sufficient moment to require discussion. Viewing the record as a whole, we find the court's before and after values, and its award for direct and consequential damages, to be well within the range of the evidence and adequately supported by the evidence. The award is reasonable, adequate and not excessive. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum by Staley, Jr., J.