Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Marraro v. State
Marraro v. State, 15 A.D.2d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1962)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1962-01-17
- Topic
- general
Bergan, P. J.,. Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds,. JJ., concur. [15 Misc 2d 243.]
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Marraro v. State. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 4 opinions
MARRARO v. STATE,15 A.D.2d 707[3d Dept 1962]
VITO MARRARO, Doing Business as PLAZA PHARMACY, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW
YORK, Respondent. (Claim No. 33758.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.
Appeal by claimant from a judgment of the Court of Claims which dismissed the claim "for failure of proof". The claim was for the value of trade fixtures purchased and installed by claimant, as a tenant, for the operation of a pharmacy, in a building appropriated by the State for Thruway purposes. No claim is made for the remaining leasehold interest. There is no dispute about the facts. The trade fixtures were installed by claimant and attached to the building. They were designed for the particular location and for claimant's particular business. It seems obvious that custom built or specially designed fixtures have little or no "market value" when ripped out and removed. It was conceded on oral argument that the owner of the fee made no claim for the fixtures involved and claimed no interest in any award therefor. Themethodof proving damages, rather than the accuracy of the proof, seems to be the basis of the court's decision. The case was tried in a very perfunctory and almostpro formamanner. Claimant proved by an expert appraiser, whose qualifications were admitted, the "sound value" of the fixtures. He determined that by deducting depreciation from reproduction cost. Concededly this was competent evidence, and the Court of Claims recognized this but said "this was simply one element of what constitutes fair market value and while it is for consideration [citation], it is not sufficient or decisive" (p. 245). The State offered no evidence whatever as to value, so the figures of the claimant's concededly qualified expert are undisputed. Under the circumstances this was sufficient proof of damages. It would impose an intolerable burden upon a small store or shop owner to prove how much his shop enhanced the value of a very large and expensive building. When he proves the "sound value" of his fixtures by competent evidence which is not disputed, certainly the State should not take his property without compensation. The only remaining question is whether wiring and piping used only for the operation of the tenant's business are compensable. Older cases holding that wiring and pipes are not fixtures do not apply to a situation where these items have no connection with the operation of the building and serve no purpose but the proper functioning of the tenant's fixtures, and are a part of the fixtures instead of the building. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and judgment granted to the claimant for the sum of $8,942, with costs. (SeeMorganthalv.State of New York,15 A.D.2d 712;Jablonv.State of New York,15 A.D.2d 712;Gurwitzv.State of New York,15 A.D.2d 712;Ader-Dulbergv.State of New York,15 A.D.2d 712;East Hills CleanersDyersv.State of New York,15 A.D.2d 713.) Bergan, P.J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur. [15 Misc.2d 243. ]