Legal Opinion · Dissent
In re the City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 30, 1967Published
1DissentScileppi, J.
We agree with the majority’s holding that Special Term’s award of $1,724,714 for the improvements on the land should be reinstated. We disagree, however, with the majority’s position that the land award of $2,614,175 is supported by substantial evidence.
If stadium use is the most advantageous use to which the Polo Grounds can be put, it follows that the Coogans are entitled to be compensated for the land at a value calculated according to that use (Sparkill Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 254 App. Div. 78, affd. 279 N. Y. 656; Matter of City of New York [Inwood Hill Park], 230 App. Div.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sparkill Realty Corp. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
- Sparkill Realty Corporation v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Commercial Casualty Insurance v. RomanNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- In re City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Matter of City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.