(Download) "City Schenectady v. Carmen Lauricella Et Al." by Supreme Court of New York # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: City Schenectady v. Carmen Lauricella Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 31, 1959
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
[9 A.D.2d 996 Page 996] Appeals by defendants from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term which confirmed the report of the commissioners
in a condemnation action. Appellants' contention that the determination was not that of all or a majority of the commissioners
(Condemnation Law, 14) is not substantiated in any respect by the record, which is, in fact, directly to the contrary, or
by the circumstance that, according to the report, the chairman expended additional time "in further detailed examination
of the record and preparing [ the ] Report." Appellants contend, also, that the report should show "how much was allowed for
each building, how much for the land, and whether or not an allowance was made for certain elements such as fixtures." We
agree that the report should be sufficiently explicit to advise the landowner clearly as to the basis of the award and to
permit intelligent judicial review. There is no requirement, however, that lands and buildings be separately evaluated and
separate findings reported (cf. Condemnation Law, 14; Sparkill Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 254 App. Div. 78, 85,
affd. 279 N. Y. 656) although unusual circumstances, not existing here, might in some cases render such detailed treatment
helpful and proper. Neither does any prejudice arise by reason of the commissioners' failure to state whether allowance was
made for fixtures or business equipment, as, first, the commissioners, on the hearing, explicitly ruled against appellants'
theory and, second, it is clear from the record that no such allowance would have been proper in either of the cases before
us. Appellants rely on Glen & Mohawk Mil Assn. v. State of New York (2 A.D.2d 95, 97), but there we approved the finding
of the Court of Claims that the plant involved was a specialty - "especially built and equipped for the receiving and processing
of milk, and constituted an 'adjusted, synchronized and perfected' unit." The buildings were held suitable for no other purpose.
The plant was "fully equipped with complex and expensive machinery and piping necessary for the various operations." There
is no comparable factual situation in either of the appeals before us. The Lauricella appeal involves a building operated
as a grocery store. The store equipment costing $15,000 [9 A.D.2d 996 Page 997]