Court Opinion

ID: 9965990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 20:09:00.109593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:42.179915
License: Public Domain

Matter of Rochester Genesee Regional Transp. Auth. v Stensrud (2024 NY Slip Op 02417)

Matter of Rochester Genesee Regional Transp. Auth. v Stensrud

2024 NY Slip Op 02417

Decided on May 3, 2024

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 3, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: LINDLEY, J.P., CURRAN, BANNISTER, GREENWOOD, AND NOWAK, JJ.

170 CA 23-01077

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF ROCHESTER GENESEE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
vJOHN R. STENSRUD AND MARIA B. STENSRUD, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

REFERMAT & DANIEL PLLC, ROCHESTER (JOHN T. REFERMAT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING PLLC, SYRACUSE (TIMOTHY N. MCMAHON OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

	Appeal from a second amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Daniel J. Doyle, J.), entered December 13, 2022. The second amended judgment awarded respondents money damages. 
It is hereby ORDERED that the second amended judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondents appeal from a second amended judgment that awarded them $509,000, plus interest and costs, after a trial in this condemnation proceeding. We reject respondents' contention that Supreme Court's award was not supported by evidence in the record. Where, as here, a court determines that "capitalization of income is the proper valuation procedure and one expert utilizes that method, a court is not required to adopt that testimony per se but may use all the evidence in the record in order to establish fair market value" (Matter of City of New York [Oceanview Terrace] , 42 NY2d 948, 949 [1977]). We conclude that the court's determination of the property's value is based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally Thoreson v Penthouse Intl. , 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992], rearg denied  81 NY2d 835 [1993]; Matter of Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v Lee , 83 AD2d 770, 770 [4th Dept 1981]).
We have reviewed respondents' remaining contention and conclude that it does not warrant modification or reversal of the second amended judgment.
Entered: May 3, 2024
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court