Matter of City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum. We affirm the determination reached by the Appellate Division. The condemnor’s evidence of value consisted of the traditionally accepted standard of comparable sales of adjacent parcels, and the record reveals this to be the only valid evidence of value. Claimants failed to substantiate their contention that the highest and best use of the condemned parcels, situated in an area zoned for light manufacturing, was for the erection of a community shopping center. Their evidence in this regard related to the physical feasibility of such a complex without any reference to or evidence…
2Cited by50 opinions
- Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Yaphank Development Co. v. County of SuffolkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Gyrodyne Co. of America, Inc. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Zappavigna v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- BTC Mortgage Investors Trust 1997-SI v. Altamont Farms, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.