G & T Rest. Corp. v Village of Port Chester
Annotate this CaseDecided on March 10, 2008
Supreme Court, Westchester County
G & T Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Coneyz, Claimant, In the Matter of the Application of The Village of Port Chester to Acquire Title to Certain Real Property Located in The Village of Port Chester, Westchester County, State of New York and Designated On the Tax Maps of the Village of Port Chester as Section 2, Block 66, Lots 7,8,9a,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18a and 18b
against
The Village of Port Chester, Condemnor.
3564/00
Robert S. Gottlieb, Esq.
Philip Sanchez, Esq.
Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, PC
Attorneys for Claimant
80 Pine Street, 32nd Floor
New York, New York 10005
John E. Watkins, Jr., Esq.
Watkins & Watkins, LLP
Attorneys for Condemnor
175 Main Street
White Plains, New York 10601
John R. LaCava, J.
The trial of this Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) Article 5 proceeding, challenging
the valuation by the Village of Port Chester (Village or condemnor) of the trade fixtures taken by
the Village in Eminent Domain from G & T Restaurant Corp. (G & T or claimant), as part of a
fee taking from Leton, Inc. (Leton), took place before this Court on August 7, August 8, and
August 9, 2006 (Dickerson, J.), and February 21, February 23, March 1, March 2, March 5,
March 20, and March 30, 2007 (LaCava, J., by stipulation of the parties). The Court has
additionally considered the following post-trial submissions numbered 1 to 13 in connection with
this matter:
PAPERSNUMBERED
POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW1
[*2]
POST-TRIAL APPENDIX/EXHIBITS2
CONDEMNOR'S POST TRIAL MEMORANDUM/EXHIBITS3
FIXTURE APPRAISAL4
CONFIRMED FIXTURE APPRAISAL5
FIXTURE APPRAISAL6
POST-TRIAL REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW7
CONDEMNOR'S REPLY POST TRIAL MEMORANDUM8
CONDEMNOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW9
LETON TRIAL MINUTES 4/15/03, 5/19/03, 7/16/03,
9/8/0310-13
The instant property was owned in fee by Leton, and known and designated on the Official Tax Map of the Village of Port Chester as Section 2, Block 66, Lot , commonly known as 1-9 North Main Street, Port Chester, New York. The property has been described as a one-story commercial property measuring approximately 2,730 square feet, situated on a .20 acre tax lot on North Main Street in the Village of Port Chester. A fast-food restaurant doing business as Coneyz was operated at the premise by G & T.
By Order and Judgment of this Court, entered August 1, 2000, (Dickerson, J.), the taking was effected.
Based upon the credible evidence and the arguments and submissions of the parties, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Court credits the trial testimony of Leton's corporate vice president, and G & T's president, Anton Tomaj, that the premises was acquired by Leton on June 10, 1996, for a purchase price of $400,000. The premises, previously a Twin Donut shop, was acquired by Leton for the purpose of establishing a fast-food restaurant, under the name Pete's Coney Island, and later, Coneyz.
The Court further finds that, due to the nature of the premises after Twin Donut's departure, Leton performed a complete gut restoration of the property. The Court declines to accept Tomaj's testimony at trial, as argued by counsel for G & T, that G & T's performed most or all of the renovations to the premises. However. Tomaj used the plural "we" on direct examination to describe the persons and/or business entities having performed the work, but on cross-examination he conceded that he had previously testified, as the vice president of Leton during the fee trial, that G & T did not exist during the time of the restoration, but commenced operation sometime later. He also agreed at the instant trial that he was not sure whether G & T even existed as a corporate entity at the time of the renovations.
In addition, Tomaj conceded that Leton commenced the renovations prior to taking fee title [*3]to the premises on June 10, 1996. In a lease executed on August 18, 1995, Leton agreed that
All improvements and alterations and repairs made to the demised premises herein shall be
made by the tenant at tenant's own cost and expense and shall become part of the demised
premises and property of the Landlord (Rogowsky et al.- Condemnor's Exhibit A)
Tomaj testified at the fee trial that work indeed commenced in 1995, and that the
restaurant commenced operations in August 1996.
The Court further finds that, at the trial, claimants entirely failed to set forth the time when the work creating the fixtures for which they seek compensation took place, whether during the leasehold (August 1995 to June 1996), upon Leton taking fee possession (June 1996 to August 1996), or upon the commencement of operations by the new entity, claimant (approximately August 1996). Nor did claimant even present its corporate filing papers to substantiate the date upon which it was formed. The Court thus concludes that Leton and not G & T performed much of the restorative work to the premises.
The Court also finds that, while G & T apparently leased the subject premises from Leton beginning sometime after Leton took possession of the premises, that lease was never reduced to a writing. In addition, G & T was not a party to the 1995 lease between the Rogowskys and Leton, hence they were not bound by the terms thereof, particularly those terms under which repairs and renovations became the property of the landlord.
The Court additionally finds that, in preparation for the instant trial, appraiser Joseph (Jay) Rusciano performed an appraisal of the contents of the subject premises for the Village. Jay Rusciano's appraisal is divided into a section containing items conceded by the Village to be compensable as trade fixtures (if owned and/or installed by claimants), and items deemed, by their nature to be non-compensable. In the former category are included a variety of items with a list of current replacement costs (CRCs) for each, to which Jay Rusciano applied, in each case, a depreciation factor of 25%. This left, for each item, a current sound value (CSV). Regarding the latter category, namely those items deemed non-compensable, while urging their non-compensability, Jay Rusciano also set forth CRCs and CSVs for each item as well.
The Court also finds that, in preparation for the instant trial, appraiser Anthony Rusciano performed an appraisal of the contents of the subject premises for the claimant. Anthony Rusciano's appraisal is a single numbered list of all of the items contained within and about the premises, all urged as trade fixtures. Each item contains a CRC for each, to which Anthony Rusciano applied a depreciation factor ranging from 0 to 20%, depending on the item, and their resulting CSVs. Claimants also supplied a chart listing the non-depreciated values, along with the values as asserted by the Village, whether as non-compensable or, where appropriate, where compensability is conceded.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW [*4]
1. The right of an owner to just compensation for property taken from him by eminent domain is one guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions (Federal Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment; NY Constitution, Art. 1, Subd 7.).
2. Upon the exercise of its eminent domain powers by a municipality, the owner of trade fixtures present in the premises -whether or not he is the fee owner of the premisesis entitled to fair compensation for the value of the goods which he may, under the terms of any leasehold, remove from the premises, but which items he does not remove. Marraro v. State, 12 NY2d 285 (1963).
3. In Marraro, 12 NY2d, 292-3, the Court examined the test for compensability of items alleged to be trade fixtures. To be a trade fixture, an item must be annexed to the premises; it must be particularly adapted to the work conducted on the premises; and there must be evidence that the installation was considered to be permanent. (See the associated matter Port Chester v. Megamat, 42 AD3d 465 (2nd Dept. 2007)hereinafter Megamat (AD); see also Rose v. State, 24 N.Y2d 80 [1969]; In re City of New York [Kaiser Woodcraft], 39 AD3d 131, 134 [1st Dept. 2007 "such installations as electric wiring and plumbing connections are ordinarily an integral part of the real estate, and therefore not separately compensable, except to the extent installed solely to service fixtures that were specially installed for the occupant's particular purpose"].) Also compensable are items which would suffer a significant diminution in value if they were removed from the premises. (In re City of New York [Merrimaker], 51 AD2d 147 [2nd Dept. 1976].) However, a lessee is entitled to recover the value of fixtures placed by him on a condemned premises only when he is entitled to remove them at the expiration of the lease. (Conklin v. State, 38 NY2d 726 [1975].) In addition, items of personalty which are removable or in any event not annexed to the premises are not trade fixtures and thus non-compensable.
4. This Court held in an associated matter, Megamat v. Village of Port Chester (Supreme Court, Westchester County, Rosato, J., entered November 16, 2005) [hereinafter Megamat (T)], that the following items were non-compensable because following installation they had merged with the subject property there: two new bathrooms; new flooring; lighting; drop ceilings; partitions; side door; front entrance (including a facade and brick pavement); and HVAC unit. The Court also held, inter alia, that 10 TV sets were compensable as trade fixtures. On appeal in Megamat (AD), while the trial court decision was reversed as to the size of the award, on the issue of compensability Megamat (T) was only reversed insofar as it found TV sets to be trade fixtures and thus compensable.
5.This Court also held in the associated Greatest Estate
Services of America v. Village of Port Chester (Supreme Court,
Westchester County, Rosato, J., entered March 9, 2006) [hereinafter GESA], that the following
specific types of fixtures merge with the realty when installed, and thus become
non-compensable: siding; storefronts; concrete slabs; skylights; flooring; doors; electrical
system; heating system; curbing; paving; floor supports; sprinklers; natural gas service; and water
service. In addition, and although urged by the Village to find that G & T is not the proper
claimant for those fixture improvements made to the premises by Leton, as they were done by
Leton and not G & T, claimant properly points out that this Court has [*5]previously held that a successor in interest may indeed recover for
such improvements. In GESA, supra, at p 6, the Court stated
To deny recovery because they were obtained by a predecessor in interest to Claimant and
limit Claimant to salvage value would be an injustice. In reality it is Mr. Greenberg who has had,
and continues to have, the financial interest herein and who should be treated fairly.
Notably, in GESA, the claimant was a corporation which was the successor
in interest, and a closely held corporation owned by, the family which had had the fee interest in
the premises, and which had previously made the improvements for which compensation was
sought by claimant. Here too, G & T is the closely held corporate successor to Leton, which had
apparently done many of the improvements for which G & T seek recompense. The Court thus
concludes, in its discretion as a matter of equity, that G & T may properly claim for fixtures
installed by its predecessor in interest, Leton. (See also Gurwitz v. State, 27 Misc 2d 731
[Ct. Cl. 1962], aff'd 15 AD2d 712 [3rd Dept. 1962].)
6.In addition, this Court had before it in the fee trial
associated with this particular premises, Leton Inc v. Village of Port Chester
(Supreme Court, Westchester County, Rosato, J., entered August 20, 2004) [hereinafter fee
award], appraisals, one of which the Village'sincluded in its valuation the following
specific types of fixtures already then present on the premises, and thus non-compensable here as
already having been the subject of an award: exterior wall covering; windows; flooring
(including tiles); interior partition walls; installed finished ceilings; doors (exterior and interior);
installed electrical system; heating system; plumbing system; roofing; and air conditioning
system.
7. Non-compensable and Compensable Items Generally
The Court generally concludes that the following classifications of items present in the subject premises are non-compensable due to their having become an integral part of the real estate, and thus the subject of compensation to the fee owner (Leton): interior and exterior wall coverings; curbs, paving and concrete slabs used for drive or walk-ways; windows and skylights; electric, gas, sewer, waste, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems; doors; floor covering including tiles; interior partitions and finished walls and ceilings; interior and exterior doors.
The Court also generally concludes that items not affixed to the premises, and whose installation was not deemed to be permanent, including many which were in fact removed from the premises, are non-compensable as personalty.
Further, the Court generally concludes that a number of items, set forth in greater detail below, are compensable as trade fixtures, having been installed in the premises for the specific purpose of the business conducted therein (a fast-food restaurant), and whose removal would cause material injury to the realty and/or the fixture or its value. These include, but are not limited to, electrical, wastewater, and ventilation system elements normally non-compensable but which were installed solely to service the business conducted in the subject premises. [*6]
8. Apprisals and Methodology
The Court generally concludes that the appraisal methods undertaken by both valuators were sound, although, as set forth herein, the Court will determine the weight to be accorded to the conclusions of each as to value. In particular, each appraiser relied generally on pricing manuals to construct current replacement costs for the various items alleged to be trade fixtures herein, and then depreciated those items to compute their conclusions as to current sound values. It should be noted that the claimant's appraiser and his methodology were credited and accepted by the Appellate Division in Kaiser Woodcraft, supra, and this Court will similarlyaccept claimant's methodology and computations as to current reproduction costs (CRC) and current sound value (CSV). The Court notes that, while Jay Rusciano for the Village used a standard depreciation factor of 25% for each item regardless of condition, claimant's appraiser, Anthony Rusciano, depreciated each specific item based on its observed condition. In that respect, the Court credits the latter procedure over the former and accepts the claimant's depreciation percentages. The appraisers then added construction and financing costs, amounting to 29.125% and 2.5%, respectively, for the Village, and 34.5% and 4.0%, respectively, for G & T. The Court finds that a sum of both costs (construction and financing) in the amount of 35% is more fully supported in the record. The final amount offered by each is the proposed condemnation fixture award.
9. SPECIFIC NON-COMPENSABLE ITEMS
ITEM No. Description And Grounds for Non-Compensability
1-6 Parking Lot and AppliancesCompensated in the feeaward; see GESA,
supra.
16-19 CanopiesCompensated in the fee award.
20Exterior Lighting -Compensated in the fee award.
21Electrical for # 20 -Compensated in the fee award.
22-24 Paving and walkways -Compensated in the fee award; see GESA, supra.
25-27 Planting Beds -Compensated in the fee award.
28-30 Stucco ExteriorCompensated in the fee award; seeGESA,
supra.
31-34 Entryway -Compensated in the fee award; see GESA,supra;
Megamat (T) and (AD), supra.
35Exterior Water Spout -Compensated in fee award.
[*7]
36Tile Floor -Compensated in fee award; see
GESA, supraMegamat (T) and (AD), supra.
37Ceiling -Compensated in fee award.
38Wall Covering- Compensated in fee award.
39Window Sill -Compensated in fee award.
43Windows, Block Wall -Compensated in fee award.
45Exit Signs -Compensated in fee award.
47Wall Covering- Compensated in fee award.
48-9 Walls -Compensated in fee award.
50a Wall Covering -Compensated in fee award.
50b Bull Nose (wall covering) -Compensated in fee award.
50c Base Cove (wall covering) -Compensated in fee award.
50d Tile FloorsCompensated in fee award; see GESA,supra;
Megamat (T) and (AD), supra.
51Walls -Compensated in fee award.
52-78 Bathrooms(2) -Compensated in fee award; see Megamat(T),supra.
79-80 Tile Floors, Base Cove -Compensated in fee award; seeGESA, supra;
Megamat (T) and (AD), supra.
83Electronic Cash Registers -Not Compensable asPersonalty.
84Pastry Display -Not Compensable as Personalty, Removed.
85Entertainment System -Not Compensable as Personalty;
see Megamat (AD), supra.
86White Chalk Board -Not Compensable as Personalty.
87Walls(divider)- Compensated in fee award.
[*8]92Fire Extinguishers -Not Compensable as
Personalty;
see Megamat (T), supra.
94Coffee Mill -Not Compensable as Personalty, Removed.
96Wall Covering- Compensated in fee award.
97Wall Clock -Not Compensable as Personalty, Removed.
98Ceiling -Compensated in fee award.
103 Ceiling -Compensated in fee award.
104Tile floorsCompensated in fee award; see GESA, supra;Megamat (T)
and (AD), supra.
105 Wall Covering -Compensated in fee award.
110 Refrigerator/Installation -Unit Not Compensable asPersonalty.
111 Shelf Unit -Not Compensable as Personalty.
122 Fatigue Mats -Not Compensable as Personalty.
127 Walls (partition) -Compensated in fee award.
128 Doors -Compensated in fee award; see GESA, supra.
129 Tile floorsCompensated in fee award; see GESA, supra;Megamat (T)
and (AD), supra.
130 Wall Covering -Compensated in fee award.
131 Ceiling -Compensated in fee award.
132 Electric LightingCompensated in fee award; see GESA,supra;
Megamat (AD)supra.
133 Storage RackNot Compensable as Personalty.
135 Walls (partition)- Compensated in fee award.
136 Walls (partition)- Compensated in fee award.
[*9]
137 Walls- Compensated in fee award; see
KaiserWoodcraft, supra; Marraro, supra.
138 Ceiling -Compensated in fee award; see KaiserWoodcraft, supra; Marraro,
supra.
139 Ceiling -Compensated in fee award.
140 Tile floorsCompensated in fee award; see GESA, supra;Megamat (T)
and (AD), supra.
141 Base Board -Compensated in fee award; see KaiserWoodcraft, supra;
Marraro, supra.
142 First Aid Kit -Not Compensable as Personalty.
145 Floor Drain -Compensated in fee award; see KaiserWoodcraft, supra;
Marraro, supra.
146 Grease TrapCompensated in fee award; see KaiserWoodcraft, supra;
Marraro, supra.
152 Work Table -Not Compensable as Personalty.
153 Slicing MachineNot Compensable as Personalty.
154a Bulletin Board -Not Compensable as Personalty.
154b Plastic Unit -Not Compensable as Personalty.
154c Fire Extinguishers -Not Compensable as Personalty; seeMegamat (T),
supra.
155 VCR Unit -Not Compensable as Personalty; seeMegamat (AD), supra. .
156 Exit Sign -Compensated in fee award.
158 Light FixtureCompensated in fee award; see GESA,supra; Megamat
(AD), supra.
159 Doors -Compensated in fee award; see GESA, supra.
167 Sprinklers -Compensated in fee award; see GESA, supra.
168 Security Camera System-Not Compensable as Personalty;see GESA,
supra; Megamat (AD), supra.
[*10]
170 HVAC -Compensated in fee award; see
GESA, supra.
171-173 Electric and Gas Service, and water meter -Compensated in fee award;
see GESA, supra.
10. COMPENSABLE ITEMS
ITEM & Desc. /CRC Cl/ CSV Cl (Depr)/CRC Cond/CRC Cond/Court
CSV
7 Steel Posts - $ 2,594 / $ 2,335 (10%) / $ 351 /$ 281 / $ 2,335
8 Steel Chain - $ 1,385 / $ 1,287 (10%) / $ 216 /$ 174 / $ 1,287
9 Parking Signs - $ 600 / $ 480 (20%) / $ 300 /$ 225 / $ 480
10 Roof Spots - $ 1,745 / $ 1,396 (20%) / $ 853 /$ 640 / $ 1,396
11 Spotlight - $ 523 / $ 418 (20%) / $ 340 /$ 255 / $ 418
12 Flood Light - $ 1,337 /$ 1,070 (20%)/ $ 375 /$ 281 / $ 1,070
13 Fencing - $ 9,600 / $ 9,540 (10%)/ $ 9,600/ $ 7,200 / $
9,540
14 Sign - $10,140 / $ 9,214 (15%) / $ 4,700 /$ 3,525 / $ 9,214
15 Signs - $ 7,600 / $ 6,840 (10%)/ $ 7,600 /$ 5,700 / $ 6,840
40 Light Fixt - $2,250 / $1,913 (15%) / $1,231 / $923 / $ 1,913
41 Ceil. Fans - $ 1,265 /$ 1,012 (20%) / $ 878 /$ 658 / $ 1,012
42 Elec Recep. - $ 769 /$ 692 (10%) / $ 1,000 /$ 750 / $ 692
44 Wind. Signs - $ 1,780 /$ 1,513 (15%)/ $ 600 /$ 450 / $ 1,513
46 Cust. Seat. - $8,570 /$6,856 (20%)/ $9,300 /$6,510 / $ 6,856
81 Serv. Count. - $4,620 /$3,696 (20%)/ $2,759 /$1,931/ $
3,696
82 Formica Barr. $ 760 / $ 608 (20%) / $ 108 /$ 76 / $ 608
88 Back Count. - $6,860 /$5,488 (20%)/ $2,472 / $1,730/ $ 5,488
89 Refrig. - $2,240 / $1792 (20%) / $585 / $410/ $ 1,792
90 Soda Disp. $ 2,190 /$ 1,752 (20%)/ $ 980 / $ 686 / $ 1,752
ITEM & Desc. /CRC Cl/ CSV Cl (Depr)/CRC Cond/ CRC Cond/Court
CSV
91 Elec Recept. - $ 785 /$ 707 (10%) / $ 750 /$ 562 / $ 707
93 Counter Disp. - $ 690 / $ 587 (15%) / $ 700 / $490 / $ 587
[*11]
95 Menu Sign - $5,445 / $4,356 (20%)/ $2,349
/ $1,762/ $ 4,356
99 Recessed Lts. - $ 750 / $ 638 (15%) / $ 568 / $ 426/ $
638
100 Partition - $450 / $405 (10%) / $371 / $278 / $ 405
101 Finishes $875 / $744 (15%) / $615 / $464/ $ 744
102 Storage Rack - $5,845 / $4,968 (15%)/ $3,000 /$ 450/ $ 4,968
106 Recessed Lts - $1,219 /$1,036 (15%)/ $ 699 / $ 524 / $ 1,036
107 Ice Machine - $5,090/ $4,072 (20%) / $2,250/ $1,575/ $ 4,072
108 Steel Sink - $1,765 / $1,500 (15%)/ $1,697 / $1,273/ $ 1,500
109 Paper Twl. Disp. - $ 75 / $ 60 (20%) / $ 25 / $ 19 / $ 60
112 Work Table - $845 / $761 (10%) / $239 / $179 / $ 761
113 Sandwich Table - $2,913/$2,330 (20%)/$1,805/$1,264/ $ 2,330
114 Refrig Inst. $1,818 / $1,455 (20%)/ $250 / $188 / $ 1,455
115 Shelving Unit - $ 210 / $ 189 (10%) / $152 / $114 / $ 189
116 Toaster - $640 / $512 (20%) / $483 / $338 / $ 512
117 Fry Warmer $1,140 /$ 969 (15%)/ $ 100 /$ 75/ $ 969
118 Frymaster - $5,940 /$5,049 (15%)/$ 200 /$ 150/ $ 5,049
119 Steel Table - $2,270 / $1,930 (15%)/ $ 633 / $ 475/ $ 1,930
120 Grid./Range - $7,088 / $6,025 (15%)/ $2,085 /$1,564/ $ 6,025
121 St.Wall Cover - $1,225 /$1,102 (10%)/ $1,170 / $936/ $ 1,102
123 Exhst. Hood - $6,165 / $5,550 (10%)/ $5,561 /$4,171/ $ 5,550
124 Exh. Ductwk - $5,190 / $4,670 (10%)/ $1,958 /$1,468/ $
4,670
ITEM & Desc. /CRC Cl/ CSV Cl (Depr)/CRC Cond/ CRC Cond/Court
CSV
125 Exh. Blowrs - $5,045 / $4,036 (20%)/ $2,772 /$2,079/ $ 4,036
126 Fire System - $2,310 / $2,195 (05%)/ $1,800 /$1,350/ $ 2,195
134 Gas line - $ 554 / $ 500 (10%) / $ 418 / $ 313 / $ 500
[*12]
143 H Water Heater - $3,450/$2,760
(20%)/$2,267/$1,700/ $ 2,760
144 Scrub Area - $ 1,614 /$ 1,372 (15%)/ $ 764 / $ 573/ $ 1,372
147 Scrub Sink - $3,495 /(15%)/ $1,205 / $ 765/ $ 2,970
148 Scrub Sink - $ 1,236 / $ 1,050 (15%)/ $ 812 / $ 609/ $ 1,050
149 Shelving - $ 3,140 / $ 2,825 (10%)/ $ 920 /$ 690/ $ 2,825
150 Mop Holder - $ 128 / $ 103 (20%) / $ 20 /$ 15 / $ 103
151 Shelving - $ 427 / $ 384 (10%) / $ 200 / $ 150 / $ 384
157 Lt. Fixt/Switch - $ 695 / $ 590 (15%) /$ 231 /$ 173/ $ 590
158 Light Fixt/Inst - $ 742 /(15%) /$ 365 /$ 274 / $ 630
160 Freezer Unit - $20,467 \$17,397 (15%)\
/ $12,743 / $10,248/ 162 Refrigerator -$17,042 /$14,485 (15%)/
$37,509 $31,882
Court CSV: $ 31,882
161, 163 St. Racks - $ 2,625 \$ 2,363 (10%)\ / $1,100 / $ 770/
$ 3,128 /$ 2,815 (10%)/
$ 5,753 $ 5,178
Court CSV: $ 5,178
ITEM & Desc. /CRC Cl/ CSV Cl (Depr)/CRC Cond/ CRC
Cond/Court CSV
164 Elec Recept. - $ 576 / $ 519 (10%) /$ 750 / $ 563 / $ 519
165 Storage Racks - $4,590 /$4,130 (10%)/$ 800 /$ 600/ $ 4,130
166 Circ. Panel Box - $6,620/$5,960 (10%)/$2,943/$2,207/$
5,960
169 Alarm System - $5,340/ $5,073 (05%)/ $3,128 / $2,346/ $5,073
Sub Total: $ 179,674.00
Construction and Financing Costs (35%):$ 62,886.00
Total Condemnation Trade Fixture Award:$ 242,560.00
8. Summary of Value Conclusions
The Court therefore finds for each of the above-numbered items set forth in the
fixture claim, [*13]in values, depreciation amounts, and
associated costs, which are within the range of testimony (Rose v. State, supra).
Conclusion
Upon the foregoing papers, and the trial held before the Court on August 7, August 8, and August 9, 2006, and February 21, February 23, March 1, March 2, March 5, March 20, and March 30, 2007, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the claim by claimant for fixture compensation for a taking conducted by the Village herein, pursuant to EDPL Article 5, is hereby granted; and it is further
ORDERED, that petitioner Village shall pay as compensation to claimant G & T Restaurant, Corp the amount of $242,560.00, with interest thereon from the date of the taking, August 1, 2000, less any amounts previously paid, together with costs and allowances as provided by law.
Submit Judgement on notice.
The foregoing constitutes the Opinion, Decision, and Order of the Court.
Dated: White Plains, New York
March 10, 2008
HON. JOHN R. LA CAVA, J.S.C.
Robert S. Gottlieb, Esq.
Philip Sanchez, Esq.
Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, PC
Attorneys for Claimant
80 Pine Street, 32nd Floor
New York, New York 10005
John E. Watkins, Jr., Esq.
Watkins & Watkins, LLP
[*14]
Attorneys for Condemnor
175 Main Street
White Plains, New York 10601
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
