Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON [WINDMILL II AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT (9 PARCELS) ]. Three P Corp., respondent-appellant; Town of East Hampton, appellant-respondent.
In a condemnation proceeding, the Town of East Hampton appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), entered May 9, 2006, which, upon a decision of the same court dated March 6, 2006, made after a nonjury trial, awarded the claimant the principal sum of $253,500 as just compensation for the taking of its real property, and the claimant cross-appeals from the same judgment on the ground of inadequacy.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In determining an award to an owner of condemned property, “the findings must either be within the range of the expert testimony or be supported by other evidence and adequately explained by the court” (Matter of City New York [Reiss], 55 N.Y.2d 885, 886, 449 N.Y.S.2d 18, 433 N.E.2d 1266; see Matter of Town of Islip v. Sikora, 220 A.D.2d 434, 436, 632 N.Y.S.2d 160; Gerosa Inc. v. State of New York, 180 A.D.2d 552, 553, 580 N.Y.S.2d 280). Here, as the Supreme Court's valuation of the condemned property and the incomplete improvement constructed thereon was within the range proffered by the parties' appraisers and adequately explained, we decline to disturb it on appeal (see Matter of Gelsomino v. City of New Rochelle, 25 A.D.3d 554, 555, 809 N.Y.S.2d 122; Matter of Town of Islip v. Sikora, 220 A.D.2d 434, 632 N.Y.S.2d 160; Matter of Town of Islip v. Mustamed Assoc., 222 A.D.2d 682, 636 N.Y.S.2d 84; Matter of County of Dutchess v. Dutchess County Indus. Dev. Agency, 213 A.D.2d 635, 624 N.Y.S.2d 442). Furthermore, although the claimant knew, before making improvements upon the property, that the Town of East Hampton had plans to condemn the property, such knowledge, without more, was insufficient to establish that the improvements were constructed in bad faith (see Vitale v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 977, 307 N.Y.S.2d 375; Champlain Stone & Sand Co. v. State of New York, 142 App.Div. 94, 127 N.Y.S. 131; Matter of Mayor, 24 App.Div. 7, 49 N.Y.S. 119).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 23, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)