[DOWNLOAD] "Joseph G. Brocka Et Al. v. State New York" by Supreme Court of New York " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Joseph G. Brocka Et Al. v. State New York
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 07, 1969
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
Involved is a parcel of some 37,400 square feet improved with a garage and gasoline filling station and located on the southerly
side of Route 17 between East Branch and Peakville, Town of Hancock, Delaware County. Five thousand square feet of the parcel
were paved and located thereon were a 25 by 40 foot concrete garage and a 25 by 16 foot open wooden shed. Typically, there
exists the usual conflict of expert testimony, the claimants' expert opining damages of $25,000 and the State's expert $7,900,
and on appeal each litigant seeks to have us disregard the testimony of the opposition's expert and embrace that of his expert.
There is much merit in the contention of both sides as to the validity of the expert testimony. The main comparable relied
on by claimants' expert was located 55 miles away inside a village, had been sold 10 years earlier and other than being also
a gasoline service station differed in size of buildings, frontage, depth and terrain. On the other hand the testimony of
the State's experts is equally, if not more, inadequate and also inconsistent and contradictory. The comparables utilized
by the State's expert in capitalizing the rental value are no more truly comparable than the main comparable used by the claimants'
expert. In addition, the written appraisal submitted by the State was made on the basis of reproduction cost and was therefore
properly rejected as controlling by the court (e. g. Dunham v. State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 596; Guthmuller v. State of New
York, 23 A.D.2d 597). Faced with this state of the record, the trial court, nevertheless, made an attempt to evaluate the
property. While the main comparable relied upon by the claimants' expert and the court leaves much to be desired, the trial
court could accept it as the best basis for evaluating the property and with a proper adjustment for its differences from
the instant property, utilize it (see Kastelic v. State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 803). Another trier of the facts might have
returned a substantially lower award, but under the circumstances of this case we are not disturbing the trial court's determination
as to value. We are doubtful that a new trial would produce any better record and, accordingly, the judgment appealed from
must be affirmed. Disposition Judgment affirmed, without costs.