New York Court of Appeals, 1979

Lord v. State

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 18, 1979 · Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur in Memorandum

48 N.Y.2d 711; 397 N.E.2d 1173; 422 N.Y.S.2d 369; 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2367

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Conolly v. Thuillez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re the Acquisition of Real Property by the County of Dutchess (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
In re the Acquisition of Real Property by the Town of Cobleskill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Natl. Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. Marie Anger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Capasso v. Capasso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Capasso v. Capasso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
In re the Acquisition of Real Property by Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Matter of Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New York (N.Y. 1981)
In re City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Laken Realty Corp. v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We reject appellant’s contention that the Court of Claims’ explanation of the rationale for its determination of valuation was so insufficient as to constitute error of law. While a more detailed description of the manner in which a court reaches *713 its determination is preferred, we cannot say that it was error as a matter of law for the majority at the Appellate Division to conclude that the Court of Claims decision considered in relation to the record was adequate for the purpose of its appellate review involving, as it did, consideration of largely factual determinations. We note, however, that we continue to subscribe to the rule that in an appropriation case or a condemnation proceeding the trial court should make its factual findings and underlying mathematical calculations as explicit as possible (cf. Matter of County of Suffolk v Firester, 37 NY2d 649).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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