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: West Bushwick Urban Renewal Area, Phase 2. 534 Bushwick Avenue Corporation, et al., appellants; City of New York, respondent.
Argued-November 23, 2009
DECISION & ORDER
In a condemnation proceeding, the claimants 534 Bushwick Avenue Corp., and Sound and Security Solutions, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), dated August 1, 2008, which granted the motion of the condemnor, the City of New York, to dismiss their claim for compensation for trade fixtures.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Where an “improvement is inconsistent with the highest and best use of the property, the claimant is not entitled to compensation for that improvement” (Matter of West Bushwick Urban Renewal Area, Phase 2, AD3d, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 07649 [2d Dept 2009]; see Acme Theatres v. State of New York, 26 N.Y.2d 385, 388-389; Van Kleeck v. State of New York, 18 N.Y.2d 897, 899; Irv-Ceil Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 43 A.D.2d 775, 776; Matter of County of Nassau, 43 A.D.2d 45, 51, affd 39 N.Y.2d 958). The claimants, who are the owners of both the subject property and the trade fixtures located thereon, acknowledge that the trade fixtures are inconsistent with the highest and best use of the subject property as mixed commercial and residential and, thus, would have to be destroyed. Consequently, the Supreme Court correctly granted the condemnor's motion to dismiss the claimants' trade fixtures claim (see Matter of West Bushwick Urban Renewal Area Phase 2, AD3d, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 07649 [2d Dept 2009] ).
The claimants' remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, BELEN and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2008-08423 (Index No. 35057 /04)
Decided: February 02, 2010
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)