You are here: / / Appraisal of Value of Gas-Line Easements Insufficient 

Appraisal of Value of Gas-Line Easements Insufficient 

The Third Department reviewed an eminent domain proceeding for gas-line easements and determined that the appraisal relied upon by the trial court did not include a sufficient explanation of the valuation methods employed to allow substantive cross-examination.  Because the other appraisal offered at trial was rejected by the trial court, the case was remanded.  Matter of Acquisition of Easements … v Porto Bagel, Inc, 514583, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

You might also like
Mother Was Not Afforded a Full Hearing in a Custody-Modification Proceeding
Worker’s Compensation Award Made by Arbitrator Pursuant to an Authorized Dispute Resolution Program Is Reviewed Under the Appellate Court’s Limited Arbitration-Review Powers (Not Under the Usual “Substantial Evidence” Standard)
GRANDMOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A PROLONGED SEPARATION OF THE CHILD FROM MOTHER OR THE MOTHER’S RELINQUISHMENT OF CONTROL AND CARE, CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO GRANDMOTHER.
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE ON BEHALF OF THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT KNOWINGLY CONSENT AND DID NOT MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER THE PROSECUTION; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER HAD, AS A JUDGE, PRESIDED OVER A DIFFERENT CUSTODY MATTER INVOLVING MOTHER, BUT INVOLVING DIFFERENT CHIDREN AND A DIFFERENT FATHER, DID NOT REQUIRE AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFACTION OF THE AFC PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 17 (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT HAVE A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER RESIDED IN ITALY, THEREFORE NEW YORK WAS NOT THE CHILD’S “HOME STATE” AND NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION; FATHER’S APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTE SERVICE IN ITALY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Downtown Improvement/Sanitary District Charges; Downtown Special Assessment... Prepayment Service Agreement Does Not Constitute a Debt that is Subject to a...