Legal Opinion

New York State Urban Development Corp. v. Goldfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 12, 1975PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

— Judgment unanimously modified, on the law and facts, in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: While we are reluctant to disturb awards in condemnation made by an able and experienced Trial Judge who has seen and heard the witnesses and viewed the properties, we believe that it is our duty to do so if the finding of value made at Special Term "is based upon erroneous theory of law or erroneous ruling in the admission or exclusion of evidence, or * * * it appears that the court at Special Term has failed to give to conflicting evidence the relative…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Matter of City of N.Y. (Newtown Creek)New York Court of Appeals · 1940
  2. In re HuieNew York Court of Appeals · 1956
  3. Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v. HarkinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
  4. City of Niagara Falls v. New York Central RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. New York State Urban Development Corp. v. WangerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API