From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. Power Authority of State of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 2, 1975
343 N.E.2d 767 (N.Y. 1975)

Opinion

Argued October 24, 1975

Decided December 2, 1975

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, HAROLD E. KOREMAN, J.

Robert J. Kafin and Neil E. Needleman for appellants.

John R. Davison, Scott B. Lilly and Peter A. Giuntini for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, essentially for the reasons contained in the opinion by Mr. Justice ELLIS J. STALEY, JR., writing for the unanimous Appellate Division, Third Department.

As that opinion indicates, defendants have assured plaintiffs that they will be compensated for the damages caused to their property. Accordingly, we leave for another day the question of whether the Power Authority may be enjoined from making a temporary entry upon land where the damages are more substantial. Nor do we find any need in this case to determine when such an entry is invasive enough to constitute a taking for public use within the meaning of section 6 of article I of the New York State Constitution.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

King v. Power Authority of State of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 2, 1975
343 N.E.2d 767 (N.Y. 1975)
Case details for

King v. Power Authority of State of New York

Case Details

Full title:ARLENE KING et al., Appellants, v. POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 2, 1975

Citations

343 N.E.2d 767 (N.Y. 1975)
343 N.E.2d 767
381 N.Y.S.2d 50

Citing Cases

Power Auth. of the State of N.Y. v. Potocnik

We are unpersuaded by the arguments made by defendants on this appeal which were not advanced by the…

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Raintree Land LLC

By their first affirmative defense, respondents allege that the petition fails to state a legally cognizable…