Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hudson Valley Sand & Stone Co. v. State

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

Decided May 26, 1977No. Claim Nos. 57581, 58378Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Main, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

We agree that the court properly denied any recovery to this claimant for the period prior to September 30, 1971. However, we are unable to agree with the majority’s remaining conclusions and, therefore, dissent and vote to affirm.

Clearly, there was a de facto appropriation of the claimant’s property. Obviously, the State’s action in padlocking the premises and posting the usual signs to enforce a tax lien against the property of the former tenant effectively ousted the claimant landlord from his property for a public purpose. When this…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Galway v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
  2. Maryland National Bank v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1964
  3. American Oil Company v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1974
  4. Dipson Realty Co. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API