Opinion
December 7, 1961
Present — Bergan, P.J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
The State appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims, awarding the sum of $33,200 plus interest to claimants as damages for the appropriation of land for highway purposes. In its opinion the court stated: "In placing a value on this property the Court has taken into consideration comparable sales, the awards made by the Court for other properties in the vicinity, the knowledge gained by hearing other claims and by viewing the property." Appellant contends that it was prejudicial error for the court to consider "the awards made by the Court for other properties in the vicinity". While this is really the same thing as saying the court in drawing upon its general knowledge and experience in arriving at a decision, we agree that it was technically erroneous to consider other awards. Other awards were not the result of a voluntary sale, were based on a different record, and were without the benefit of cross-examination by these parties. However, where the record sustains the decision and judgment, the fact that the court gives a wrong reason, as one of the reasons for its decision, is not fatal and does not mandate a reversal. Upon this record we think the error was harmless. The only other contention is that the award is excessive. Claimants owned approximately 11 acres of land on the north side of Route 17C between Owego and Binghamton, N Y Concededly its highest and best use was for industrial purposes, and it was so zoned. Because of recent developments in the area, particularly the construction of an enormous modern factory by International Business Machines Corporation upon adjoining land sold to IBM by claimants, property in the vicinity has greatly increased in value. The Court of Claims found as a fact: "5. That prior to the appropriation, the value of land along Route 17C had increased tremendously as a result of the construction of the International Business Machines Plant in the vicinity." The State's expert witness testified: "I would say it was as valuable land as there is in the vicinity of Owego and that is the reason that I put a value on it after appropriation of $36,550." This parcel of claimants' land fronted on Route 17C for 1,128 feet. In widening and straightening Route 17C because of increased traffic, the State took outright a small parcel containing approximately 4,300 square feet, and raised the grade of the highway substantially along most of the frontage. For 700 feet the grade was raised from 1 foot to 3.9 feet above the grade of the old road; for 350 feet the grade was raised 5.3 feet, and for the remaining 78 feet the grade was raised 4.7 feet. According to claimants' expert this elevation of the highway made the property undesirable for industrial purposes unless the land were filled to an extent to make easy access to the highway. He estimated that the cost of fill rendered necessary by the change in grade at $40,375, and testified that when improved by the fill the land was worth $7,000 per acre. The State's expert ignored the change in grade of the highway and gave no consideration at all to the necessity for fill to render the property suitable for its highest and best use. The wide variance between the experts was largely in their opinion as to value after appropriation, the State's expert merely giving his bald opinion that this parcel was still worth $36,550 after the appropriation without fill. The Court of Claims obviously rejected this opinion, which it had a perfect right to do, as it found the value of this parcel after the appropriation to be $7,500. By far the major portion of the award ($31,500) was for the small parcel taken and consequential damage to the remainder of this 11 acres on the north side of Route 17C. The claimants also owned seven acres on the south side of Route 17C, with a right of way to it from Route 17C. For damages to that parcel and the right of way because of change of grade the court awarded $1,600, and nominal damage of $100 for the taking of a temporary easement. We are dealing with an exceptionally valuable property which clearly was adversely affected in a very substantial manner by the appropriation. The Court of Claims Judge who heard the case is necessarily experienced in fixing values in appropriation cases. He viewed the premises. The amount awarded is well within the range of the testimony. This court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts unless an erroneous appraisal of the damage is clearly established, which is not the case here. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondents.