DeMARCO v. STATE

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed with one bill of costs payable by the appellants.

On this record we find that the Court of Claims properly rejected the appraisals of the claimants' expert (see, e.g., Matter of City of New York [Oceanview Terrace], 42 N.Y.2d 948, 949; Zappavigna v. State of New York, 186 A.D.2d 557; Matter of Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v. Lee, 83 A.D.2d 770; Pelino v State of New York, 50 A.D.2d 656; Lawyers Co-op. Publ. Co. v State of New York, 45 A.D.2d 927), and properly declined to award consequential damages for negative view or visual pollution (see, Criscuola v. Power Auth., 81 N.Y.2d 649; Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Olin, 138 A.D.2d 940, 941; Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. [Peryea], 118 A.D.2d 891, 893).

We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.