Legal Opinion · Dissent

BALDWIN-HALL CO., INC. v. State

New York Court of Appeals

Decided November 24, 1965No. Claim 35692Published

1Dissent

VanVoorhis, J. (dissenting).

I concur in Judge Bergah’s dissenting opinion and agree that the order appealed from should be reversed and the judgment of the Court of Claims reinstated. All vehicular accession to one street upon which claimant’s building fronted is eliminated by change of grade. In Buro v. State of New York (306 N. Y. 730, affg. 281 App. Div. 61) and Selig v. State of New York (10 N Y 2d 34) recovery was denied for the reason that accession to the affected street was not destroyed, but was rendered less valuable due to the raising or depression of the center of the street, or…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Buro v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
  2. Buro v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API