Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Compensation for Condemnation of Temporary Easements

By Stewart E. Sterk
April 28, 2008

When the state condemns a temporary easement that encumbers the frontage of a vacant parcel, but uses the easement for only a fraction of the easement's total duration, how should the landowner's compensation be computed? In McCurdy v. State (NYLJ 3/21/08, p. 27, col. 3), the Court of Appeals concluded that landowner was entitled to consequential damages for harm to the interior land not encumbered by the easement, but only for the period when the state's use of the easement obstructed landowner's access to the interior of the parcel. The court's opinion, however, did not foreclose the possibility of more generous compensation in a future case.

The McCurdy Facts

In 1980, McCurdy purchased a vacant quarter-acre parcel fronting on the Montauk Highway in the Town of Islip. McCurdy operated a dental office on an adjacent parcel, which he did not own. In 1999, the state set out to reconstruct the highway, and appropriated a 71-square-foot slice of McCurdy's land. The parties do not dispute that the value of this slice was $850. At the same time, however, the state appropriated a temporary easement over a larger, 679-square-foot slice of McCurdy's land. The temporary easement was designed to facilitate grading during reconstruction of the road, and was to terminate upon completion of the highway work. The temporary easement ultimately terminated on Feb. 1, 2001, nearly two years after the condemnation had become effective.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.