Condemnee’s predecessor commenced claim seeking direct damages for value of land appropriated by State as well as consequential damages for diminution in value to the remainder of the property.
Following trial, the Court of Claims awarded condemnee $232,000 in direct damages and lost site improvements but denied condemnee’s claim for consequential damages. Condemnee appealed.
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that:
- Court of Claims properly determined value of appropriated land in determining amount of direct damages owed to condemnee;
- Condemnee was not entitled to award of consequential damages for State’s partial taking of landowner’s real property; and
- Condemnee was not entitled to sanctions for spoliation of evidence by according an adverse inference with respect to the alleged destruction of draft appraisal reports prepared by the State’s appraiser.
Court of Claims properly determined value of appropriated land in determining amount of direct damages owed to condemnee in condemnee’s claim for damages for State’s partial taking of his land, where amount of direct damages was within range of parties’ expert testimony and was adequately explained, court considered comparable sales relied upon by parties’ expert, and court did not adopt comparable sales analyzed by court in prior case.
Condemnee was not entitled to award of consequential damages for State’s partial taking of landowner’s real property, where condemnee failed to meet its burden of proof to establish indirect damages and to furnish basis upon which reasonable estimate of those damages could be made, condemnee did not present evidence that potential expansion was physically possible in light of existing zoning requirements or economically feasible, and condemnee was not entitled to award of consequential damages based upon partial taking reducing amount of parking on property.
Condemnee was not entitled to sanctions for spoliation of evidence by according an adverse inference with respect to the alleged destruction of draft appraisal reports prepared by the State’s appraiser in condemnee’s proceeding for damages following State’s partial taking of condemnee’s real property, where condemnee failed to present evidence that State’s appraiser violated Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice by failing to maintain in his work file prior draft appraisal report that was transmitted to State, and condemnee failed to present evidence that appraiser created and intentionally destroyed prior drafts of appraisal report, which were relevant to condemnee’s claim.