In re the City of New York
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtUghetta, J.
The contention of the claimants that they are entitled to a return greater than 4% per annum is rejected.
In this proceeding, where the city has acquired a temporary interest, the proper méasure of compensation is the rental that the owner of the condemned property probably could have obtained had the property not been condemned. (Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U. S. 1, 7.) The only competent testimony in this proceeding is that the property acquired might have been rented for 4% per annum for the duration of the city’s interest.
It is immaterial that in other condemnation…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kimball Laundry Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Steinberg v. Forest Hills Golf Range, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
3Cited by2 opinions
- Freidus v. EisenbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Freidus v. EisenbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986