New York Court of Appeals, 1965

Northern Lights Shopping Center v. State

New York Court of Appeals · Decided January 7, 1965

15 N.Y.2d 688; 204 N.E.2d 333; 256 N.Y.S.2d 134; 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1688

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

La Briola v. State of NY (N.Y. 1975)
Knickerbocker Development Corp. v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Ingber v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
County of Erie v. Abbott-Ridge Roads (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Raj v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Hylan Flying Service, Inc. v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1975)
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Linnecke (Nev. 1970)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Orders affirmed, without costs.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Burke, Scileepi and Bergan. Judge Van Voorhis dissents, in part, in the following memorandum: I conclude with the majority that the circle and weaving lane created by the construction of Interstate Highway Route 81, the one-way routing of traffic on Route 11 and County Highway 208 abutting the subject property, and other elements of alleged consequential damage are not compensable, except that I think that the right of access to Route 11 and County Highway 208 (as it existed before these changes were made) has been unreasonably restricted. Reasonable access to a highway is a property right which cannot be taken without payment of just compensation. The rule of reason in restricting access in the interest of public safety is established by Red Apple Rest. v. McMorran (12 N Y 2d 203), and I think that it has been transcended in this case. The circumstance that appellant has claimed more than it is entitled to receive should not obliterate this factor from consideration. I would remand the case for a separate determination of this element of consequential damage.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.