| Matter of Town of E. Hampton [WindmillII Affordable Hous. Project (9 Parcels)] |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08083 [44 AD3d 963] |
| October 23, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Town of East Hampton [Windmill II AffordableHousing Project (9 Parcels)]. Three P Corp., Respondent-Appellant; Town of East Hampton,Appellant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Edward Flower of counsel), forrespondent-appellant.
In a condemnation proceeding, the Town of East Hampton appeals from a judgment of theSupreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), entered May 9, 2006, which, upon a decision of thesame court dated March 6, 2006, made after a nonjury trial, awarded the claimant the principalsum of $253,500 as just compensation for the taking of its real property, and the claimantcross-appeals from the same judgment on the ground of inadequacy.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In determining an award to an owner of condemned property, "the findings must either bewithin the range of the expert testimony or be supported by other evidence and adequatelyexplained by the court" (Matter of City of New York [Reiss], 55 NY2d 885, 886 [1982];see Matter of Town of Islip v Sikora, 220 AD2d 434, 436 [1995]; Gerosa Inc. v Stateof New York, 180 AD2d 552, 553 [1992]). Here, as the Supreme Court's valuation of thecondemned property and the incomplete improvement constructed thereon was within the rangeproffered by the parties' appraisers and adequately explained, we decline to disturb it on appeal(see Matter of Gelsomino v City of NewRochelle, 25 AD3d 554, 555 [2006]; Matter of Town of Islip v Sikora, 220AD2d 434 [1995]; Matter of Town of Islip v Mustamed Assoc., 222 AD2d 682 [1995];Matter of County of Dutchess v Dutchess County Indus. Dev. [*2]Agency, 213 AD2d 635 [1995]). Furthermore, although theclaimant knew, before making improvements upon the property, that the Town of East Hamptonhad plans to condemn the property, such knowledge, without more, was insufficient to establishthat the improvements were constructed in bad faith (see Vitale v State of New York, 33AD2d 977 [1970]; Champlain Stone & Sand Co. v State of New York, 142 App Div 94[1911]; Matter of Mayor, 24 App Div 7 [1897]). Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Fisher and Carni,JJ., concur.