Case Name: In the Matter of the Petition of the County of Suffolk for the Purpose of Acquiring the Lands in the Town of Islip, Suffolk County, New York, Required or Necessary for or Incidental to the Construction of the Captree State Causeway or Incidental to the Separation of Grades at the Intersection of Said State Causeway and County, Town or Village Roads, Highways or Streets. Herbert J., Yates, Appellant; County of Suffolk and Others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1933-12
Citations: 240 A.D. 975
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Petition of the County of Suffolk for the Purpose of Acquiring the Lands in the Town of Islip, Suffolk County, New York, Required or Necessary for or Incidental to the Construction of the Captree State Causeway or Incidental to the Separation of Grades at the Intersection of Said State Causeway and County, Town or Village Roads, Highways or Streets. Herbert J., Yates, Appellant; County of Suffolk and Others, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 240
Pages: 975–975

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Petition of the County of Suffolk for the Purpose of Acquiring the Lands in the Town of Islip, Suffolk County, New York, Required or Necessary for or Incidental to the Construction of the Captree State Causeway or Incidental to the Separation of Grades at the Intersection of Said State Causeway and County, Town or Village Roads, Highways or Streets. Herbert J., Yates, Appellant; County of Suffolk and Others, Respondents.

Opinion:
Order in so far as it sets aside an award made to appellant by the commissioners of estimate reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the award to the appellant confirmed, with taxable costs and disbursements and an additional allowance of $2,000. Upon the testimony of the witnesses for the county and the appellant as to the value of the appellant's lands and building taken in this proceeding and his consequential damages, it cannot be said that the award of the commissioners of estimate is grossly excessive. No erroneous theory was adopted by the commissioners and no prejudicial error committed. In all other respects the order in so far as appealed from is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Young, Rapper, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., not voting.