In re West Bushwick Urban Renewal Area
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Dickerson, J.
In this case, we consider whether the claimants, each of whose real property was acquired by the condemnor, City of New York, are entitled to compensation for certain trade fixtures located on their property. We hold that, where, as here, trade fixtures are inconsistent with the highest and best use of the property that is the subject of the taking, claimants are not entitled to compensation for both the property in its highest and best use and the trade fixtures which are inconsistent therewith.
The Taking
The claimant George Cho was the owner of 73 Melrose…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- City of Buffalo v. J. W. Clement Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1971
- Jackson v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Acme Theatres, Inc. v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1970
- Marraro v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1963
- In the Matter of City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Knowles v. SchaefferAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- In re West Bushwick Urban Renewal Area, Phase 2Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- City of New York v. American Pipe & Tank Lining Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- In re Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- In re Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.