Opinion
November 12, 1970
Appeal from a judgment in favor of claimant, entered February 17, 1969, upon a decision of the Court of Claims. On March 2, 1966 the State appropriated 27,700 square feet of claimant's property in fee, and 555 square feet thereof for two permanent easements. Prior to the appropriation, claimant's property consisted of 32,800 square feet of land improved with two three-story and one four-story factory buildings, containing a total of 63,516 square feet of space. The buildings had been used by claimant in its manufacturing business until 1964, when claimant commenced phasing out its business by reason of the pending appropriation. The property was a rear parcel having access from three separate streets and also having a railroad spur. At the time of the appropriation, the appraisers for both parties agreed that the buildings had a rental value of 40 cents per square foot. The State's appraiser, however, considered that 60% of the space was not physically rentable, but did not explain the basis of this opinion. Claimant's appraiser found a before value of $121,500, an after value of $5,300, and found damages to be $116,950 of which he attributed $116,200 to the fee and permanent easement takings, and $750 for a temporary easement. The State's appraiser determined the before value to be $52,000, and the after value to be $2,342 with total damages being $50,000. He found direct damages of $45,832, consequential damages of $3,844 and temporary easement value of $460 in arriving at the $50,000 damage figure. The court determined the before value of the property to be $96,700, and the after value to be $3,040.80. It awarded damages in the amount of $93,809.20, attributing $89,098 as direct damages, $4,561.20 as consequential damages, and $150 to the temporary easement. In arriving at its before value, the court fixed the value of the land and land improvements at $1.50 per square foot for a total land value of $49,200, and the value of the buildings at $47,500 for a total before value of $96,700. In rejecting the State appraiser's values, the court referred to the economic changes in the City of Amsterdam, the assessed value of the property, and the equalization rate of 77%, noting that in 1955 there were four million square feet of vacant warehouse space, and in 1965 this has been reduced to 500,000 square feet, and in 1967 to 200,000 square feet, and that the assessed valuation of the property in 1965 was $59,400. On this appeal the State does not dispute the court's finding of after value nor its allowance for the temporary easement, but questions only the before value as found by the court. In particular, the State questions the propriety of the court's consideration of the assessed valuation of the property and the economic situation in the City of Amsterdam, and also questions the percentage of adjustments made by claimant's appraiser to comparable sales. The State contends that assessed valuation and equalization rates are irrelevant to the question of market value, and may not be considered in determining market value. Assessed valuation and equalization rates constitute some evidence of what the city assessors deemed to be the full value of the property and it is proper for the court to consider it along with other evidence of value ( City of Buffalo v. Irish Paper Co., 31 A.D.2d 470, affd. 26 N.Y.2d 869), and such evidence has been held to be relevant, material and competent upon the issue of damages. ( Vasile v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 1042, affd. 24 N.Y.2d 969.) The State objects to the adjustments made by claimant's appraiser as to comparable sales. The State appraiser also used the same sales, therefore, the objection is not as to comparability, but as to the size of the adjustment of 300%. The State argues that such an adjustment renders claimant's appraisal meaningless and, since the court's valuation required an upward adjustment of 200%, the court's valuation is erroneous. Considering the comparable which the State appraiser considered as having the greatest weight, we note that the comparable had 20,000 square feet of space, whereas the subject property had 63,516 square feet of space, that the subject property was closer to the business section of the city, and both appraisers agreed that this was a plus factor as to land value, although they differed as to the percentage of adjustment. This comparable had a valuation of $1.75 per square foot and the claimant's appraiser adjusted this to $2.25 per square foot. Thus, if instead of considering the dollar amount valuation of the buildings, and the value per square foot is used, the adjustment by claimant's appraiser amounts to about 28% and not 300%, and the before value arrived at by the court based upon the square foot area of usable space alone would amount to 1.53 cents per square foot or a downward adjustment of about 15%. "Each appraiser used comparables which left much to be desired but which, with adjustments because of their differences from the subject property and in view of the apparent lack of better comparables, were sufficient to be utilized by them in arriving at the particular value placed upon the appropriated property, the degree of comparability becoming a question of fact ( Latham Holding Co. v. State of New York, 16 N.Y.2d 41, 45; Brocka v. State of New York, 31 A.D.2d 852; Kastelic v. State of New York, 29 A.D.2d 803, 804)." ( Sapia v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 821.) The final objection by the State is that the decision of the trial court is not sufficiently detailed as to be susceptible to intelligent review. The appraisals, however, were sufficient to establish a range of expert opinion supported by competent evidence, and the before value arrived at by the court, which the State admits is the only item in dispute being an amount between the two extremes, should not be disturbed. ( Sapia v. State of New York, supra.) Judgment affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, P.J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.