Court Opinion

ID: 9885650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:09:29.933393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:55.557689
License: Public Domain

Memorandum. The order should be affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion at the Appellate Division. As that opinion demonstrates, the record makes it clear that the appellant carried on no quarrying operations in parcels B and 0 since it acquired those properties more than 40 years ago. And, contrary to the intimations in the dissenting opinion, the appellant, as the Appellate Division pointed out, offered no proof either (1) “ as to the financial loss it may suffer ” (23 A D 2d, p. 342); (2) or “ as to the value of the land in parcels B and C which * * * are apparently good residential building lots of substantial value which can be realized by [appellant] if its operations are limited to parcel A ” (23 A D 2d, p. 342); or even (3) that “ the parcels in question are more valuable for quarrying than they are for sale as residential lots ” (23 A D 2d, p. 343).