Court Opinion

ID: 9787187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:12:14.649051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:53.218515
License: Public Domain

Fuld, J. (concurring).
Although I agree with the disposition of these appeals, I am impelled to add these few words to state the precise ground of my concurrence.
The question presented is whether evidence of reproduction cost less depreciation constitutes sufficient proof of the value of the tenant’s fixtures. In my opinion, two decisions — Matter of City of New York (Allen St.) (256 N. Y. 236) and Matter of City of New York (198 N. Y. 84) — give us the answer to the question. In the Allen Street case, this court held that the value of the fixtures must be included in the award “ To the extent that the value of the real property as a whole is enhanced by the fixtures annexed thereto ” (256 N. Y., at p. 249). If the fixtures are owned by the tenant, he is entitled to an award for them £ £ not because the fixtures added to the value of the leasehold, but because they belonged to him and their value enters into the value of what the city has taken ” (p. 249). And, in the second case (Matter of City of New York, 198 N. Y. 84, supra), the court held that, in determining the enhancement in value of land by improvements thereon, whether designated building or fixtures, evidence of reproduction cost less depreciation is relevant .and admissible. In the case before us, the Appellate Division was correct in its statement that proof by the tenant of ££ the 1 sound value ’ [i.e., reproduction cost less depreciation] of his fixtures by competent evidence which is not disputed ” is ££ sufficient proof of damages.” (Marraro v. State of New York, 15 A D 2d 707).
Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Burke, Foster and Scileppi concur with Judge Van Voorhis; Judge Fuld concurs in result in a separate opinion in which all concur.
Judgments affirmed.