Legal Opinion
Matter of Rochester Urban Renewal Agency
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 16, 1979PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division.
Claimant has created an issue as to value and the extent of its damages by alleging that the property taken by eminent domain was a specialty and therefore was not susceptible of valuation by fair market standards. Since fair market value is presumptively the .correct method for assessing damages in condemnation cases, a condemnee who would have the court apply a different method must bear the burden of demonstrating that the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Heyert v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1966
- Matter of Urban Renewal [Patchen Post]New York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Newburgh Urban Renewal Agency v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1974
- Village of Penn Yan Urban Renewal Agency v. Penn Yan Realty Corp., New York County Courts1968
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re the Acquisition of Real Property of BroomeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v. Gorge Terminal Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- In re the City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1983