Murphy v. State of N.Y

7 Citing cases

  1. Lateral Sewer 2005 of Southwest Sewer District v. Vic Martin Construction Corp.

    113 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)   Cited 5 times

    Such new evidence, developed prior to payment and substantiated by an engineer's affidavit, showed that, due to newly discovered defects in the existing lateral sewer system and the appurtenances acquired in the subject condemnation, the value of the acquired property was diminished by at least $26,300. Accordingly, we find no merit to claimant's contention that its cross motion of June 16, 1983 and the resulting nonappealed order of June 27, 1983 bound appellant to pay $42,573 plus interest and precluded the appellant's cross application ( see, Plateis v Flax, 54 A.D.2d 813) in opposition to claimant's enforcement motion of August 30, 1983 ( see, Brummer v State of New York, 25 A.D.2d 245; Murphy v State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 81; Cronk v State of New York, 100 Misc.2d 680). The mandate of EDPL 303 is that the condemnor establish and offer "an amount which it believes to represent just compensation". At bar, after the property was appraised for $42,573, but, before payment, evidence was adduced that the property was worth at least $26,300 less than the original appraisal.

  2. Jerome v. State

    64 A.D.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

    The State's settlement appraisal exceeded the State's appraisal at trial. However, since the settlement offer was rejected by claimants and the appraisal was not admitted into evidence, it is not binding on the State and may not be used to determine the value of the property (Murphy v State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 81; Brummer v State of New York, 25 A.D.2d 245; Lieberthal v State of New York, 22 A.D.2d 831, affd 16 N.Y.2d 1012). Thus, contrary to their contention, claimants were not denied just compensation simply because the award at trial was less than the State's offer of settlement.

  3. Oriskany Development Corp. v. St. of New York

    63 A.D.2d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)   Cited 4 times

    The agreement further provided: "It is further agreed that in any trial of a claim that may be filed by the claimant, neither the determination of the Commissioner of Transportation as hereinabove set forth, nor any data, estimates or appraisals made or prepared in support thereof, shall be evidence of the value of the claim or of the property affected by the claim." Thus, by reason of the terms of the agreement, claimant was not entitled to use the agreement or the appraisal made in preparation for it as evidence of the value of damages (Murphy v State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 81; Brummer v State of New York, 25 A.D.2d 245). In addition, claimant had full access to the prior appraisal, and was permitted to fully cross-examine the State's appraiser at great length.

  4. Road v. State

    Motion No. M-94815 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. May. 22, 2020)

    Defendant in its opposition argues that the Court's judgment should not be disturbed unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions cannot be supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Defendant correctly contends that the appraisal used by the State for making an EDPL 303 advance payment offer to a condemnee is not binding on the State for trial purposes (Johnson v State of New York, 72 AD2d 487 [3d Dept 1980]; Oriskany Dev. Corp. v State of New York, 63 AD2d 1082 [3d Dept 1978]; Murphy v State, 29 AD2d 81 [3d Dept 1967]). As such, the Court will not take into consideration the amount of the advance payment except where necessary in connection with defendant's motion to recover overpayment pursuant to EDPL 304 (H).

  5. International Salt v. State

    125 Misc. 2d 939 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1984)

    Furthermore, the court, while it must make an award which is within the range of the testimony at trial, is not required to adopt the figures of either expert as to total damages, particularly where the court has viewed the premises. ( Murphy v State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 81, 82.) "The fact that the amount awarded is less than the value given by experts for either the city or the claimants is not ground for reversal."

  6. Cook v. State of N Y

    105 Misc. 2d 1040 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1980)   Cited 8 times

    As held in Brummer (supra), the parties to an advance payment contract that the statements therein are not evidence of value. This agreement is binding on the parties. (Murphy v State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 81.) However, the "Statement of Just Compensation" is a unilateral offer.

  7. Sullivan v. State of N.Y

    57 Misc. 2d 308 (N.Y. Misc. 1968)   Cited 7 times

    It has been clearly established that an appraisal prepared by an expert who is not called as a witness and which was intended to be utilized solely for litigation; or, for negotiation in an effort to accomplish a settlement prior to trial; or, to establish a basis for the partial payment to be made to the claimant pursuant to subdivision 13 of section 30 High. of the Highway Law, is not admissible on the trial. ( Murphy v. State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 81, 82; Lieberthal v. State of New York, 22 A.D.2d 831, 833, affd. without opn. 16 N.Y.2d 1012; Brummer v. State of New York, 25 A.D.2d 245, 249. Cf. City of Buffalo v. Ives, 55 Misc.2d 730.) One exception to the above is that all prior appraisals prepared by an expert witness called to testify or by the appraisal firm by whom that appraiser is employed must be produced upon proper demand.