From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rochester Poster Advertising v. State of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 12, 1962
183 N.E.2d 911 (N.Y. 1962)

Summary

holding that company was entitled to be compensated for the signs to the extent that they enhanced the value of the property and that the enhancement value was the fair market value of the signs as determined by their replacement cost

Summary of this case from State v. Bishop

Opinion

Argued May 10, 1962

Decided June 12, 1962

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, ALEXANDER DEL GIORNO, J.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General ( Julius L. Sackman and Paxton Blair of counsel), for appellant.

Henry W. Williams, Jr., for respondent.

Norman E. Joslin for Whitmier Ferris Co., Inc., amicus curiae.



Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and FOSTER.


Summaries of

Rochester Poster Advertising v. State of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 12, 1962
183 N.E.2d 911 (N.Y. 1962)

holding that company was entitled to be compensated for the signs to the extent that they enhanced the value of the property and that the enhancement value was the fair market value of the signs as determined by their replacement cost

Summary of this case from State v. Bishop
Case details for

Rochester Poster Advertising v. State of New York

Case Details

Full title:ROCHESTER POSTER ADVERTISING CO., INC., Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 12, 1962

Citations

183 N.E.2d 911 (N.Y. 1962)
183 N.E.2d 911
230 N.Y.S.2d 30

Citing Cases

State v. Bishop

" Id.See, e.g., Rochester Poster Adv. Co. v. State, 213 N.Y.S.2d 812 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1961), aff'd, 222 N.Y.S.2d…

Schmaeling v. Schmaeling

Two well-settled principles of law require this court to hold that petitioner's interest in the subject…