From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Westvale Acres, Inc. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 25, 1972
38 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Opinion

February 25, 1972

Appeal from the Court of Claims.

Present — Del Vecchio, J.P., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Henry, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The evidence fully supports the finding by the Trial Judge that except for the reservation by the State of the area in question for future arterial highway purposes, more than eight years before the appropriation, claimant owner would have developed the area into subdivision lots, built on them and sold them, as it did the adjoining area. Claimant acquired this property for residential development, unaware of the State's reservation of the area in question for a public purpose, and submitted a plan to the Planning Commission showing the entire appropriated section subdivided into lots. The plans were rejected because of the threat of condemnation as to a portion of the property. Since the threat of condemnation was the sole cause of the claimant's failure to develop this area it was proper to award to claimant a value commensurate with the value of the adjoining lands owned and developed by it (see City of Buffalo v. Irish Paper Co., 31 A.D.2d 470, affd. 26 N.Y.2d 869).


Summaries of

Westvale Acres, Inc. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 25, 1972
38 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)
Case details for

Westvale Acres, Inc. v. State

Case Details

Full title:WESTVALE ACRES, INC., Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 25, 1972

Citations

38 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Citing Cases

Samfred Belt Line v. State of N.Y

The court adopted claimant's position and found a before value of $3,944,250 at a value of $108,900 per acre…

City of Long Beach v. Sun NLF Ltd.

The City's appraiser conceded that there was no use for parcel 12 other than in an assemblage with the…