| Matter of Village of Port Chester |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06700 [43 AD3d 943] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Village of Port Chester, Respondent. William D.Brody, Appellant. |
—[*1] Watkins & Watkins, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (John E. Watkins, Jr., and Liane V. Watkins ofcounsel), for respondent.
In a condemnation proceeding, the claimant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much ofa judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered April 3, 2006, as,upon a decision of the same court entered January 26, 2006, made after a nonjury trial, awardedhim the principal sum of only $2,570,000 as just compensation for the taking of his real property.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Pursuant to an urban redevelopment plan, in August 2001 the Village of Port Chesterappropriated the subject properties belonging to the claimant, which included property improvedwith interconnected, multi-story, commercial buildings, and two vacant lots. After a nonjury trial,the court awarded the claimant the principal sum of $2,570,000, which the claimant challenges asinadequate. The Supreme Court found credible the claimant's testimony as to the extensiverenovations he performed on the buildings since he purchased the property in 1996, and foundthe buildings were in good condition at the time of the taking. Moreover, while it noted thatneither of the reports by the parties' expert appraisers was "perfect," the court rejected bothparties' contention that the other's expert appraiser lacked credibility, and observed with approvalthat both parties' appraisers had employed the income capitalization methodology. The courtnonetheless rejected aspects of both appraisers' reports. First, it found that the record did notsupport the lump sum reduction of the value of the properties by the potential rental value ofportions of the rear buildings [*2]that the Village's appraisererroneously deemed to be "unfinished." Second, the court rejected the separate valuation for thetwo vacant lots, as propounded by the claimant's appraiser, which he based on the claimant'sproposed use of those lots as a multi-story office building with on-site parking. In rejecting thistreatment of the two vacant lots, the court found that the claimant failed to demonstrate that suchuse was reasonably probable. Since the Supreme Court's determination as to valuation was withinthe range proffered by the parties' appraisers, and thoroughly explained, we decline to disturb iton appeal (see Broadway Assoc. v Stateof New York, 18 AD3d 687, 688 [2005]; Madowitz v State of New York, 288AD2d 442, 443 [2001]; Estate of Dresner v State of New York, 262 AD2d 274, 275[1999]; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v Neptune Assoc., 190 AD2d 669,670 [1993]; cf. Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. [Superior Reed & Rattan FurnitureCo.], 160 AD2d 705 [1990]; Matter of City of New York, 94 AD2d 724 [1983],affd 61 NY2d 843 [1984]).
Further, although the real estate market in the area encompassed by the Village's urbanredevelopment plan, which included the subject properties, was depressed at the time of thetaking, the claimant failed to set forth any affirmative conduct by the Village that unreasonablyinterfered with or further depressed the value of the subject properties sufficient to transform thealready disadvantageous market conditions into "condemnation blight" (City of Buffalo vClement Co., 28 NY2d 241, 254-255 [1971]; see Samfred Belt Line Corp. v State ofNew York, 43 AD2d 62, 65 [1973]; cf. City of Buffalo v Irish Paper Co., 31 AD2d470, 473 [1969], affd 26 NY2d 869 [1970]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Florio andAngiolillo, JJ., concur.