20 Cited authorities

  1. Continental Cas. v. Rapid-Am

    80 N.Y.2d 640 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 536 times
    Holding that these terms are to be construed narrowly as barring coverage "only when the insured intended the damages"
  2. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    98 N.Y.2d 208 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 353 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that indemnity should be allocated pro rata
  3. Allied Corp. v. Town of Camillus

    80 N.Y.2d 351 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 121 times
    In Allied Corp., where the Court once again reiterated the need for cautious use of the reproduction cost method, it stated that "courts are interested in making certain that governments are not forced to pay the high valuations typically produced by the reproduction cost less depreciation method" where "the owner would likely discontinue the use on his own in the absence of the taking" (80 N.Y.2d, at 359-360).
  4. Commerce Corp v. Assessors Bd.

    88 N.Y.2d 724 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 62 times
    Affirming income capitalization method combined with sales comparison approach for land only
  5. In re City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency

    20 A.D.3d 168 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 41 times

    CA 04-01506. June 10, 2005. CROSS APPEALS from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Charles T. Major, J.), entered February 13, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to EDPL article 5. The judgment awarded respondents $433,220, together with interest and costs. Hiscock Barclay, LLP, Buffalo ( Mark R. McNamara of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Law Offices of Robert A. Gladstone, Belle Mead, New Jersey ( Robert A. Gladstone of the New Jersey Bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for r

  6. Inmar Associates, Inc. v. Borough of Carlstadt

    112 N.J. 593 (N.J. 1988)   Cited 50 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the value of contaminated land for tax purposes cannot be determined by simply deducting the cost of the cleanup from the putative value of the property and suggesting that contaminated properties be assessed as "special purpose" properties
  7. Bermeo v. Atakent

    241 A.D.2d 235 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 33 times
    Mentioning “different elements of the particular future damages award (e.g., medical expenses, future care, lost earnings, pain and suffering)”
  8. University Plaza v. Hackensack

    264 N.J. Super. 353 (N.J. Super. 1993)   Cited 39 times
    In University Plaza, a New Jersey appellate court applied the deduction approach to a piece of property which was undergoing a voluntary asbestos decontamination program, reasoning that Inmar was a "unique" case.
  9. Serio v. Public Service Mutual Ins. Co.

    304 A.D.2d 167 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 20 times

    2002-02825 Argued September 5, 2002. April 21, 2003. APPEAL by the plaintiff in an action for a judgment declaring the parties' respective obligations to pay a personal injury settlement pursuant to successive policies of liability insurance, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court (Kenneth A. Davis, J.), dated March 6, 2002, and entered in Nassau County, as denied its motion for summary judgment and granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring

  10. State v. Slezak Petroleum Prods., Inc.

    96 A.D.3d 1200 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 9 times

    2012-06-14 STATE of New York, Respondent, v. SLEZAK PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, et al., Defendants. Robert J. Krzys, Amsterdam, for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of counsel), for respondent. Robert J. Krzys, Amsterdam, for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of counsel), for respondent. Before: SPAIN, J.P., KAVANAGH, STEIN, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ. SPAIN, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme