[Download] "Louis W. Lundquist v. State New York" by Supreme Court of New York " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Louis W. Lundquist v. State New York
• Author : Supreme Court of New York
• Release Date : January 22, 1970
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 64 KB

Description

[33 A.D.2d 950 Page 950] As a result of the appropriation, respondent's access to his remaining land was limited to some 73 feet fronting on old
Route 6. The trial court found that the highest and best use of the entire property prior to the taking was C-2 Local Retail
Business and after the appropriation is "for a commercial use, limited under the circumstances because of the narrow approach
and the difficulty presented by the lack of access". Finding that this change in use resulted because the appropriation made
access unsuitable for the original use, the trial court awarded consequential damages. The State contends that the remaining
73-foot access is a suitable access as a matter of law and that, therefore, the court erred in awarding consequential damages,
relying on the rule that no consequential damages may be awarded for interference with access if a suitable means of access
is left or provided (Priestly v. State of New York, 23 N.Y.2d 152; Bopp v. State of New York, 19 N.Y.2d 368; Selig v. State
of New York, 10 N.Y.2d 34). Of course, the fact that claimant's property is no longer accessible to a heavily traveled State
highway (Bopp v. State of New York, supra, p. 372) or that mere circuitry of access is involved (Selig v. State of New York,
supra ; Northern Lights Shopping Center v. State of New York, 20 A.D.2d 415, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 688, cert. den. 382 U.S. 826;
Nettleton Co. v. State of New York, 11 A.D.2d 899) would not support an award of consequential damages, but a finding that
the remaining access is unsuitable for the highest and best use prior to the appropriation will support an award of consequential
damages based on a change in highest and best use (Priestly v. State of New York, supra ; Argersinger v. State of New York,
32 A.D.2d 708; King v. State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 604). In Priestly v. State of New York (supra, p.156) [33 A.D.2d 950
Page 951]

Free Download "Louis W. Lundquist v. State New York" PDF ePub Kindle