Opinion
December 27, 1994
Appeal from the Court of Claims (McCabe, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In 1986, the State of New York, on behalf of the Power Authority of the State of New York (hereinafter PASNY) acquired portions of the claimants' approximately 344-acre property in Goshen by power of eminent domain for the construction of a power line referred to as the Marcy South Transmission Line. Following a trial, the Court of Claims awarded the claimants $41,477 in direct damages and denied their claim for consequential damages.
We find that the Court of Claims properly declined to award the claimants consequential damages for, among other things, "negative view", "cancerphobia", and noise pollution. The claimants failed to demonstrate that the market value of property adjacent to or near land upon which power lines have been built was diminished by such factors in relation to comparable properties which are not adjacent to or near power lines (see, Criscuola v Power Auth., 81 N.Y.2d 649, 654; Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v Olin, 138 A.D.2d 940, 941; Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Peryea), 118 A.D.2d 891, 893).
The claimants contend that the trial court erred in precluding them from offering evidence relating to the reasonableness of the public fear of health risks from exposure to high-voltage power lines. However, in light of the decision in Criscuola v Power Auth. (supra), that it is not necessary to prove the reasonableness of the public fear in order to establish a diminishment in market value, the preclusion of such evidence was not error.
With respect to the direct damages, we find that, contrary to the claimants' contention, the trial court's determination of the value of the acreage and of the "cut, trim, and remove" easement was within the range of expert testimony (see, Matter of City of New York [Reiss], 55 N.Y.2d 885; City of Batavia v Bolas, 174 A.D.2d 993; City of Buffalo v Goldman, 63 A.D.2d 828, 829; Kommit v State of New York, 60 A.D.2d 945).
We have considered the claimants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.