Opinion
October 27, 1967
Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Sullivan County, entered June 14, 1966, which confirmed an award for the taking of 3.19 acres of land for a power transmission line. The award by the Commissioners of Appraisal of $3,200 for the fee taking is not questioned by plaintiff-appellant and the sole question presented upon this appeal is the award of $10,000 for consequential damages. Although respondents had cross-appealed they have asked for an affirmance of the judgment. Respondent corporation owned a rectangular parcel of 96.3 acres upon which it operates a resort hotel. The land acquired by the present proceeding consists of a strip of land 100 feet wide and some 1400 feet in length crossing respondents' lands. Upon this appeal it is urged that the report of the Commissioners lacks any substance in fact and should be disaffirmed as a matter of law. With this contention, we cannot agree. Being strictly circumscribed as we are in reviewing awards made by Commissioners of Appraisal, we cannot say upon the record before us that the award was so shocking as to warrant interference on our part. The power of the courts to review such awards is strictly limited, and every intendment is in favor of the action of the commission ( Matter of Huie [ Fletcher-City of New York], 2 N.Y.2d 168; New York State Elec. Gas Corp. v. Moratto, 25 A.D.2d 913). Unless the findings are so grossly inadequate as to prevent adequate judicial review or the award is so unreasonable as to shock our conscience, we cannot disturb the award. We cannot say that the report is not so sufficiently specific as to permit proper review. In fact, as here, many factors are properly considered. The court in Matter of Huie ( Fletcher-City of New York) ( supra), clearly stated the criteria to be used in these cases when, at page 171, it said: "In the determination of that just compensation, there is no single element which is controlling, and it is competent for the commissioners of appraisal to consider all factors indicative of the value of the property, such as its fair market value as of the date of appropriation ( Matter of Board of Water Supply of City of N.Y., 277 N.Y. 452, 456-458), the reproduction cost of improvements less depreciation ( Matter of City of New York [ Blackwell's Is. Bridge], 198 N.Y. 84), sales of similar property ( Village of Lawrence v. Greenwood, 300 N.Y. 231, 235), location ( Matter of Board of Water Supply of City of N.Y., supra, p. 458), income (id.; see, also, Onondaga County Water Auth. v. New York Water Service Corp., 285 App. Div. 655, 662), highest suitable use ( Sparkill Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 254 App. Div. 78, 82, affd. 279 N.Y. 656), and consequential damages to property not taken but affected by the condemnor's use ( South Buffalo Ry. Co. v. Kirkover, 176 N.Y. 301). `Omission of an attempt to enumerate all is of no consequence here. It would be a difficult and unsatisfactory venture. No single element standing alone is decisive' ( Matter of Board of Water Supply of City of N Y, supra, p. 458)." Judgment and order affirmed, with costs to respondent Hotel Gibber, Inc. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J.