Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Eminent Domain Law
No Consequential Damages For Taking of Temporary Easement
Ronmar Realty, Inc. v. State of New York
NYLJ 10/31/14, p. 26, col. 6
AppDiv, Second Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an eminent domain proceeding, claimant landowner appealed from a Court of Claims judgment denying a claim for consequential damages to landowner's retail property when the state took a temporary easement over the center's frontage on a main road. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that without proof of damages, landowner was not entitled to recover.
Landowner's parcel has 77 feet of frontage on a state highway. In connection with a highway reconstruction project, the state acquired a temporary easement over a 939-square-foot strip of frontage. Landowner filed a claim for damages, and the Court of Claims awarded landowner the retail value of the strip, but denied landowner any recovery for damage to the rental value of the property not taken. Landowner appealed.
In affirming, the Appellate Division noted that the state's activity never completely blocked access to the parcel, and that disruption and interference was limited, sporadic, and brief. The court emphasized the absence in the record of any concrete evidence of significant economic injury. As a result, the court concluded that the Court of Claims had properly limited damages to the rental value of the land encompassed by the temporary taking.
'
No Consequential Damages For Taking of Temporary Easement
Ronmar Realty, Inc. v. State of
NYLJ 10/31/14, p. 26, col. 6
AppDiv, Second Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an eminent domain proceeding, claimant landowner appealed from a Court of Claims judgment denying a claim for consequential damages to landowner's retail property when the state took a temporary easement over the center's frontage on a main road. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that without proof of damages, landowner was not entitled to recover.
Landowner's parcel has 77 feet of frontage on a state highway. In connection with a highway reconstruction project, the state acquired a temporary easement over a 939-square-foot strip of frontage. Landowner filed a claim for damages, and the Court of Claims awarded landowner the retail value of the strip, but denied landowner any recovery for damage to the rental value of the property not taken. Landowner appealed.
In affirming, the Appellate Division noted that the state's activity never completely blocked access to the parcel, and that disruption and interference was limited, sporadic, and brief. The court emphasized the absence in the record of any concrete evidence of significant economic injury. As a result, the court concluded that the Court of Claims had properly limited damages to the rental value of the land encompassed by the temporary taking.
'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.