Matter of Dorodea S. Bldg. Co., Inc. v. State of N.Y.

2 Citing cases

  1. New York Sch. v. Honeywell

    55 A.D.3d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to require a trial ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 562; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Honeywell's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, declining to "rewrite the clear and unambiguous terms of the parties' agreement so as to impose . . . an obligation" clearly not intended by the parties ( Matter of Dorodea S. Bldg. Co. v State of New York, 171 AD2d 866, 867-868; see Fiore v Fiore, 46 NY2d 971, 973; Shames v Abel, 141 AD2d 531, 533-534). [ See 2007 NY Slip Op 31921(U).]

  2. Fischer v. MMRR Construction Corp.

    204 A.D.2d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    This prior order was affirmed by this Court (see, Chemical Bank v. MMRR Constr. Corp., 169 A.D.2d 699). The general rule is that: "when land is taken for public use, the damages awarded are to take the place of the land in respect to all the rights and interests which were dependent upon and incident to it" (Utter v. Richmond, 112 N.Y. 610, 613, quoted in Daniel v. Soben Equities Corp., 23 A.D.2d 228, 230; see also, Copp v. Sands Point Marina, 17 N.Y.2d 291). After title to property has been taken by the sovereign in a condemnation proceeding, "the law substitutes the condemnation award for the security previously provided by the mortgage" (Copp v. Sands Point Marina, supra, at 293, citing Muldoon v. Mid-Bronx Holding Corp., 287 N.Y. 277; see also, Matter of Dorodea S. Bldg. Co. v. State of New York, 171 A.D.2d 866; Levine v. State of New York, 106 A.D.2d 709; Silverman v. State of New York, 48 A.D.2d 413; Matter of Silverman v. Lefkowitz, 41 A.D.2d 442; Holman v. Newton, 275 App. Div. 513; Matter of Lafayette Natl. Bank, 254 App. Div. 207; 51 N.Y. Jur 2d, Eminent Domain, ยง 140). The order now appealed from, as well as the dictum contained in the prior decision and order of the Supreme Court quoted above, are perfectly consistent with this general principle.