From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Queensboro Farm Products, Inc. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 1958
5 A.D.2d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Opinion

March 21, 1958

Appeal from the Court of Claims.

Present — McCurn, P.J., Kimball, Williams, Goldman and Halpern, JJ. [ 6 Misc.2d 445.]


Judgment affirmed, with costs.


The trial court's analysis of the case and of the legal theories applicable thereto was erroneous. There was no de facto taking of the claimant's milk plant. The principal question was one of consequential damages, alleged to have been caused by interference with the water supply and with highway access to the plant. The State offered to establish a new permanent water line upon property acquired by it and therefore no consequential damages to the milk plant can be allowed for interference with the water supply. The question of whether the relocated road was wholly unsuitable as a means of access should be re-examined. Mere inconvenience is not sufficient as the basis for a claim for damages ( Holmes v. State of New York, 279 App. Div. 489, 282 App. Div. 278).


Summaries of

Queensboro Farm Products, Inc. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 1958
5 A.D.2d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)
Case details for

Queensboro Farm Products, Inc. v. State

Case Details

Full title:QUEENSBORO FARM PRODUCTS, INC., Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 21, 1958

Citations

5 A.D.2d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Citing Cases

Texas Pig Stands, Inc. v. Krueger

Other Courts also have compensated lessee on the basis of the market value of the improvements owned by him.…

State ex Rel. Hwy. Dept. v. Kistler-Collister Co.

The law, however, does afford him a relief, if the city or a contractor interferes with the highway without…