President, Etc., of Manhattan Co. v. Premier Bldg

9 Citing cases

  1. People ex Rel. East River Savings Bank v. Pattison

    254 App. Div. 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

    The referee applied the proper tests under present conditions in reaching his conclusions as to value. (See President, etc., of Manhattan Co. v. Premier Bldg. Corp., 247 App. Div. 297; Heiman v. Bishop, 272 N.Y. 83; People ex rel. Amal. Properties, Inc., v. Sutton, 274 id. 309; Great Northern Ry. v. Weeks, 297 U.S. 135.) This court is in no position to substitute its judgment for that of the referee, who saw and heard the witnesses and saw each parcel of property. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

  2. McCarthy v. Jablonski

    253 App. Div. 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

    We believe this was error. ( Heiman v. Bishop, 272 N.Y. 83; President, etc., of Manhattan Co. v. Premier Bldg. Corp., 247 App. Div. 297.) We may, however, fix the amount of the deficiency judgment.

  3. King v. Daru

    252 App. Div. 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)   Cited 3 times

    In an action brought for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property, order granting plaintiff's motion to confirm the report of an official referee as to the fair market value of the mortgaged premises on the day of the sale in foreclosure reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the proceeding remitted to the Special Term for a new hearing there or before an official referee to be appointed. The record discloses (1) error on the part of the learned official referee in excluding from his consideration certain evidentiary elements entering into the ascertainment of the value of the mortgaged premises, which elements have been declared by authority to be competent as evidence ( Heiman v. Bishop, 272 N.Y. 83; President, etc., of Manhattan Co. v. Premier Bldg. Corp., 247 App. Div. 297); and (2) further error on his part in excluding the testimony of the expert witness Edward B. Morris as to value. Although that witness "never had sales" in the neighborhood, he was shown otherwise to be qualified to testify.

  4. Hoard v. Luther

    251 App. Div. 692 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)   Cited 2 times

    In the case just cited the court mentions various items which may fairly be considered, such as the location of the premises, its accessibility, its assessed value, the age, nature, construction, and state of repair of the buildings, the rent received, the conditions in the locality, and the sale of similar property in the neighborhood. This same rule has been consistently followed in other cases. ( Schnur Realty Co., Inc., v. 906 Intervale Ave. Realty Corp., 274 N.Y. 518; Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor v. Lassaw Realty Co., 273 id. 609; Central Hanover Bank Trust Co. v. Kraft, Id. 634; President Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Premier Bldg. Corp., 247 App. Div. 297; Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. 205 State Corp., 248 id. 736; Irving Trust Co. v. Benann Holding Corp., 249 id. 731; Wichmann v. Gehrke, Id. 791; Minkner v. Camalag, Id. 825; City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Cedar Rivers Corp. Id. 718.

  5. Minkner v. Camalag

    249 App. Div. 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

    Order, in so far as it denies plaintiff's motion to direct the entry of a deficiency judgment, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the matter remitted to the Special Term to try the issues, either before the court or a referee, and to make a finding of the fair and reasonable value of the premises. (See President, etc., of Manhattan Co. v. Premier Bldg. Corp., 247 App. Div. 297; Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. 205 State Corp., 248 id. 736; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Guttag Corp., 265 N.Y. 292; Heiman v. Bishop, 272 id. 83.) Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

  6. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. 205 St. Corp.

    248 App. Div. 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)   Cited 2 times

    June, 1936. Order denying plaintiff's motion to confirm the report of the official referee and to direct the entry of a deficiency judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the matter remitted to Special Term, where a finding of the fair and reasonable value of the premises should be made. (See President, etc., of Manhattan Co. v. Premier Bldg. Corp., 247 App. Div. 297.) Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

  7. Lohmann v. Manneck

    248 App. Div. 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

    We are of opinion that the finding of fact by the referee was supported by the greater weight of the testimony and should not have been disturbed. (See President Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Premier Building Corp., 247 App. Div. 297.) Lazansky, P.J., Young, Hagarty, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

  8. Randall v. Bailey

    23 N.Y.S.2d 173 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940)   Cited 10 times

    61 in 1927, $8,415,024 in 1928, $8,449,253.54 in 1929, $8,423,116.40 in 1930, and $8,395,108.40 in 1931, were assessed at $9,413,500 in 1927, $9,471,500 in 1928, $10,488,500 in 1929 and $10,497,000 in 1930 and 1931. Tax assessments in this City and other cities of this State repeatedly have been recognized as competent evidence upon the question of value (Heiman v. Bishop, 272 N.Y. 83, 88, 4 N.E.2d 944; Matter of Board of Water Supply of City of New York, 277 N.Y. 452, 458, 14 N.E.2d 789; Hoard v. Luther, 251 App.Div. 692, 694, 297 N.Y.S. 718; Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of Pittsfield, Mass., v. Van Voorhis, 245 App.Div. 592, 283 N.Y.S. 95; President and Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Premier Bldg. Corp., 247 App.Div. 297, 285 N.Y.S. 806; Matter of Simmons, 132 App.Div. 574, 576, 116 N.Y.S. 952, and I think it not uncommon for business men to act upon them, within reasonable limits, as a rough and ready indication of value. With respect to these particular assessments the company instituted certiorari proceedings, and in its petitions and supporting affidavits it claimed that the assessments should be reduced far below the amount at which the properties were carried on its books.

  9. Corn Exchange Bank Trust Co. v. Ekenberg

    161 Misc. 62 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1936)   Cited 2 times

    Upon the evidence taken this court may make its own finding. ( President Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Premier Building Corp., 247 A.D. 297.) Upon what basis, then, should the court make its finding?