You are here: / / Consequential Damages Related to a Parcel of Land Sold Prior to the Taking...
,

Consequential Damages Related to a Parcel of Land Sold Prior to the Taking Should Not Have Been Granted by the Court of Claims

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fahey, determined the Court of Claims should not have awarded consequential damages for a parcel of land which was sold prior to the taking.  As the court described the issue:

Here we address the issue whether consequential damages may be awarded when the real property in question was sold months before the taking of other real property that affects the land in question. Claimants commenced this proceeding seeking damages for the diminished value of approximately 16 acres of what claimants characterized as “remaining land” following defendant’s taking of approximately 1.22 acres of land from what was claimants’ 17.3-acre parcel. Following a trial, the Court of Claims awarded claimants consequential damages with respect to what the court concluded was 12.835 acres of that parcel. Included in the 12.835 acres of land for which the court awarded consequential damages were 4.63 acres of land sold by claimants to Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (Progressive Parcel) for $1,800,000. That sale occurred in November 2005, i.e., before the taking of the aforementioned 1.22 acres of land in July 2006. Defendant now contends that the award of consequential damages was excessive inasmuch as the court erroneously awarded consequential damages for the Progressive Parcel. We agree. Rose Park Place Inc v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03070, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

You might also like
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WHO ALLEGEDLY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE NON-DEFAULTING DEFENDANT, IT WAS AN IMPROVIDENT EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO DELAY THE DAMAGES ASPECT OF THE SUIT AGAINST THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT UNTIL THE TRIAL OR DISPOSITION OF THE SUIT AGAINST THE NON-DEFAULTING DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN VIRGINIA, PLAINTIFF’S CHOICE OF FORUM (NEW YORK) SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPHELD; VIRGINIA WITNESSES MAY COME TO NEW YORK VOLUNTARILY OR THE VIRGINIA WITNESSES COULD BE DEPOSED IN VIRGINIA; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SPECULATED ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF VIRGINIA WITNESSES (FOURTH DEPT).
Counsel for Nonparty Witness Cannot Participate in Deposition
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED, APPEAL CONSIDERED DE NOVO, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PUT REASONS FOR RESTRAINING DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT THE UNDERLYING REASONING.
Contract Between Employer and Contractor Did Not Create a Duty Owed to Employee/Instrument of Harm Doctrine Not Applicable
THE DEFENSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO EXPRESSED SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT BEING ABLE SERVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE HER ULTIMATE STATEMENT SHE COULD DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO SERVE; THE NEW CPL ARTICLE 245 DISCOVERY STATUTES IMPOSE NEW BURDENS ON THE PEOPLE ENCOMPASSING ROSARIO AND BRADY MATERIAL AND EXTENDING TO DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NOT IN THE PEOPLE’S POSSESSION, EVEN WHERE THE DEFENSE CAN ACCESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER OF METAL ROOFING WAS A CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, EVEN IF IT DID NOT DO SO; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A ROOF WHERE THE METAL ROOFING WAS BEING INSTALLED (FOURTH 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

Competency of Evidence Before Grand Jury Not Reviewable On Appeal Where Defendant... Professional Reliability Exception to the Hearsay Rule (Re: Experts) Explained/Appropriate...