AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

In the Matter of ROCHESTER URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, Respondent, v. HAMMER LITHOGRAPH, Appellant.

Order and judgment unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: This appeal arises from a condemnation proceeding brought by Rochester Urban Renewal Agency to acquire certain real property owned by the Hammer Lithograph Corporation. The court below granted Hammer Lithograph a total award of $160,894, and an additional allowance of $6,435.76 for costs. We affirm the award but note that, in computing the total amount, the court made a mathematical error. The total award, as corrected, is $160,864. The additional allowance granted by the court of 4% of the total award should be modified upward to 5% of the award (see Condemnation Law, § 16, subd [2]). In view of the purpose of this allowance to defray the expenses which an owner incurs in establishing the value of his property (New York State Urban Dev. Corp. v Goldfeld, 54 A.D.2d 1099; Matter of Dodge v Tierney, 40 A.D.2d 936) and, in view of the substantial expenses Hammer Lithograph has incurred, the court abused its discretion by failing to grant the full 5% allowance (see Matter of Speach v Smith, 53 A.D.2d 1024).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF ROCHESTER URBAN REN. v. LITHOGRAPH
(Jan 24, 1980)