Opinion
January 16, 1976
Appeal from the Oneida Supreme Court.
Present — Moule, J.P., Cardamone, Mahoney, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: This being a condemnation proceeding as distinguished from an appropriation case, the power of the court to review the award of the Commissioners is strictly limited (City of Niagara Falls v New York Cent. R.R. Co., 31 A.D.2d 780). In Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v Harkins ( 40 A.D.2d 1075, mot for lv to app den 31 N.Y.2d 648), we reaffirmed the limited judicial review authority in such proceedings, observing that: "The court cannot modify but must either confirm the report or reject it for irregularities in the proceeding, or because it is based on an erroneous principle of law, or because it `"shocks not only one's sense of justice, but one's conscience"' (Matter of Huie [Fletcher], 2 N.Y.2d 168, 171)." We find no irregularity in this proceeding, the award is adequately delineated and not based on any erroneous principle of law, and it cannot be said to shock the sense of justice or conscience of the court. Nor does the extra allowance awarded by the trial court pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 16 of the Condemnation Law constitute an abuse of discretion and, accordingly, it was properly granted (Matter of Dodge v Tierney, 40 A.D.2d 936; County of Niagara v Bagwell, 36 A.D.2d 196, 198; City of Little Falls v Greene Real Estate Corp., 27 A.D.2d 640).