City of Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v. Rochester Storage Warehouse

Majority

p. 900

Fourth Department,

November, 1988

(November 15, 1988)

City of Rochester Urban Renewal Agency, Respondent-Appellant, v Rochester Storage Warehouse, Appellant-Respondent. City of Rochester Urban Renewal Agency, Respondent-Appellant, v Rochester Carting Company, Appellant-Respondent.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law by utilizing the replacement cost method for valuing the subject building (Matter of Rochester Urban Renewal Agency [Patchen Post], 45 NY2d 1 , 9; Matter of Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v Kiernan, 42 NY2d 236 , 240; Matter of City of Rochester [Ryan & McIntee], 56 AD2d 715 , 716, lv denied 41 NY2d 806 ; cf., Matter of City of Rochester v S. C. Toth, Inc., 59 AD2d 1020 , affd 45 NY2d 984 ). Because this is the only issue raised by the parties on this appeal on a stipulated statement in lieu of a record on appeal, we affirm the judgment. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bonadio, J. — condemnation). Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cases cited

In re Rochester Urban Renewal Agency 45 NY2d 1 N.Y. 1978-06-13 at 9 p. 900
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Kiernan 42 NY2d 236 N.Y. 1977-07-05 at 240 p. 900
City of Rochester v. S. C. Toth, Inc. 59 AD2d 1020 N.Y. App. Div. 1977-11-04 p. 900
In re the City of Rochester 45 NY2d 984 N.Y. 1978-11-28 p. 900