Legal Opinion
Matter of City of Ny (Civitano)
New York Court of Appeals
Decided April 29, 1976PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
(As respondent.) Special Term’s award for a partial taking is legally unsupportable as it even exceeds the in-place value of all fixtures prior to the taking. Since claimant made no attempt to estabish before and after value, it was not entitled to more than the cost of restoring to use those fixtures that were within the area of taking, as awarded by the court below. (Rose v State of New York, 24 NY2d 80; Abe Cooper-Syracuse, Inc. v State of New York, 8 AD2d 578, 6 NY2d 964; Sinclair Refining Co. v State of New York, 279 App Div 692; City of Little Falls v State of New York, 198 App Div 488;…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- City of Buffalo v. J. W. Clement Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1971
- United States v. GrizzardSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- South Buffalo Railway Co. v. KirkoverNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Matter of Culver Contrg. Corp. v. HumphreyNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Rose v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mil-Pine Plaza, Inc. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- People v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1988
- Cummings v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Nimby Food Service, Inc. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- People v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978