You are here: / / CLAIMANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FEASIBILITY OF USE OF THE CONDEMNED LAND...

CLAIMANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FEASIBILITY OF USE OF THE CONDEMNED LAND FOR HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL AS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE.

The Second Department determined claimants did not demonstrate it was feasible the highest and best use of condemned waterfront property would be high-rise residential. The court explained the law:

The bedrock of eminent domain law is the principle that, when private property is taken for public use, the condemning authority must “compensate the owner so that he may be put in the same relative position, insofar as this is possible, as if the taking had not occurred” … . “The measure of damages must reflect the fair market value of the property in its highest and best use on the date of the taking, regardless of whether the property is being put to such use at the time” … . Moreover, “[i]t is necessary to show that there is a reasonable possibility that the property's highest and best asserted use could or would have been made within the reasonably near future, and a use which is no more than a speculative or hypothetical arrangement may not be accepted as the basis for an award”… .

” [A] condemnee may not receive an enhanced value for its property where the enhancement is due to the property's inclusion within a redevelopment plan'” … . Thus, for example, property zoned for industrial use ” should be valued in accordance with the industrial zoning designation which would apply if the redevelopment plan did not exist,' for [a] condemnee is only entitled to compensation for what it has lost, not for what the condemnor has gained'” … . Matter of Queens W. Dev. Corp. v Nixbot Realty Assoc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03746, 2nd Dept 5-11-16

EMINENT DOMAIN (CLAIMANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FEASIBILITY OF USE OF THE CONDEMNED LAND FOR HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL AS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE)/HIGHEST AND BEST USE (EMINENT DOMAIN, CLAIMANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FEASIBILITY OF USE OF THE CONDEMNED LAND FOR HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL AS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE)

You might also like
DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRECONDITIONS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
PROVISION IN MORTGAGE WHICH GAVE BORROWER RIGHT TO DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT DID NOT PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF BANK FROM ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY FILING A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Request for New Assigned Counsel Was Not Supported by Sufficient Facts to Warrant Inquiry by the Court
Plaintiff Unable to Identify Cause of Fall
THE FRANCHISOR, TOYOTA, DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE FRANCHISEE’S, PLAZA TOYOTA’S, DAILY OPERATIONS; THEREFORE TOYOTA COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR PLAZA TOYOTA’S NEGLIGENCE; HERE A WHEEL FELL OFF PLAINTIFF’S CAR AFTER IT WAS SERVICED AT PLAZA TOYOTA (SECOND DEPT).
Trial Judge’s Violation of CPL 310.30 in Responding to Jury Note Constituted Reversible “Mode of Proceedings” Error
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COUNSEL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEEK LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION FOR FIVE YEARS AFTER PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1021 (SECOND 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

FAILURE TO PROVIDE RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR CHALLENGE TO BLACK JUROR REQUIRED... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIR...