Opinion
Argued April 26, 1989
Decided June 1, 1989
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Aldo A. Nastasi, J.
Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Fred Kolikoff and Larry A. Sonnenshein of counsel), for appellants.
Joseph N. Giamboi and S. Paul Squitieri for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The judgment of Supreme Court appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.
The only legal question presented is whether the property taken — a four-story building with an auditorium equipped for staged productions, a gymnasium, locker and shower rooms and other facilities appropriate to its use as a boys' club — was a specialty and, therefore, properly valued by the replacement cost less depreciation method. We agree with the majority at the Appellate Division that it was a specialty (see, Matter of County of Suffolk [Van Bourgondien Nurseries], 47 N.Y.2d 507, 511-512; Matter of Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co. v Kiernan, 42 N.Y.2d 236, 240; Matter of County of Nassau [Colony Beach Club], 43 A.D.2d 45, affd 39 N.Y.2d 958). Thus, we reject the city's argument that, because no proof of market value was adduced, the building should be held to have no value at all. Contentions concerning the amount of the award involve factual determinations beyond our review.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.
Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Certified question not answered as unnecessary.