Opinion
Argued September 4, 1979
Decided October 16, 1979
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, ANDREW V. SIRACUSE, J.
James M. Hartman, Michael C. Normoyle and Frank S. Hagelberg for appellant.
Duncan W. O'Dwyer and Robert J. Kalb for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division.
Claimant has created an issue as to value and the extent of its damages by alleging that the property taken by eminent domain was a specialty and therefore was not susceptible of valuation by fair market standards. Since fair market value is presumptively the correct method for assessing damages in condemnation cases, a condemnee who would have the court apply a different method must bear the burden of demonstrating that the value of his property cannot reasonably be measured by the fair market value approach (Matter of Penn Yan Urban Renewal Agency v Penn Yan Realty Corp., 57 Misc.2d 1033; see Matter of Rochester Urban Renewal Agency [Patchen Post], 45 N.Y.2d 1, 9; Newburgh Urban Renewal Agency v Williams, 79 Misc.2d 991; cf. Heyert v Orange Rockland Utilities, 17 N.Y.2d 352, 364). Claimant here has failed to sustain this burden, and, consequently, its request for a higher damages award must be rejected.
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.