00238624

Component

https://onlinepubs.trb.or...s/trcircular/89/89-001.pdf

THE CASE (PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORP. V. HUDSON RAPID TUBES CORP. 20 N.Y. 2D 457, 231 N.E. 2D 734 (1968)) REPRESENTS A UNIQUE APPROACH TO THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF VALUING A SPECIAL PROPERTY WHERE THERE IS NO COMPARABLE PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH TO MAKE A RELATIVE VALUATION. CONTINUED DEFICIT OPERATION OF THE RAPID TUNNEL SYSTEM CONNECTING NEW YORK CITY AND THE NEW JERSEY SUBURBS CAUSED THE PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORPORATION TO EXERCISE ITS POWER OF CONDEMNATION OVER THE TUNNEL PROPERTY OF THE HUDSON RAPID TUBES CORPORATION AND THE NON-TUNNEL FACILITIES OF THE HUDSON AND MANHATTAN CORPORATION. THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, SPECIAL TERM, ASCERTAINED THE VALUATION AS A RETURN OF ORIGINAL INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY MINUS THE DEPRECIATION ALREADY TAKEN OUT. FINDING A 'GOING CONCERN' VALUE WAS DEEMED JUSTIFIED DUE TO THE CITY CONTINUING THE OPERATION. THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, MODIFIED THE AWARD OF THE LOWER COURT USING SCRAP VALUATION AS THE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION. THE COURT OF APPEALS USED REPLACEMENT VALUE FOR RAISING THE CONDEMNATION AWARD BUT DID NOT USE REPLACEMENT COST AS THE MEASURE OF THE AWARD BUT SIMPLY AS AN INDICATION THAT SCRAP VALUATION WAS INADEQUATE. A POINT OF PARTICULAR INTEREST IS THE APPARENT CONCLUSION OF THE COURT THAT WHERE THERE IS CURRENT DEMAND FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY A FACILITY EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO MARKET DEMAND FOR THE FACILITY ITSELF, SUCH A DEMAND WILL WARRANT SOME CONSIDERATION OF REPLACEMENT COST AND GOING CONCERN VALUE.

No 89, pp 1-3. Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1968-12

Highway Research Circular

Digital/other

Appraisals; Awards; Courts; Decision making; Facilities; Highway operations; Investments; Laws; Property acquisition; Property condemnation; Public transit; Rapid transit; Vehicular tunnels

Replacement costs

Finance; Highways; Law; Public Transportation

TRIS, TRB

Feb 10 1994 12:00AM

• EXPROPRIATION FOR ADDITIONAL PIPELINE WILL NOT EXTINGUISH RESIDUAL VALUE AND WILL NOT SUPPORT CLAIMS OF SEVERANCE OR AGRICULTURAL USE DAMAGES
• NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, HOLDS THAT BOARD OF ESTIMATES MAY NOT REFUSE REDEMPTION OF FORECLOSED PROPERTY WHERE THE CITY HAS NO USE FOR THE PROPERTY
• OFFSET TO SEVERANCE DAMAGE BY BENEFIT TO PROPERTY ACROSS HIGHWAY WHERE UNITY OF OWNERSHIP AND USE EXIST
• SEEDLING TREES INCAPABLE OF TRANSPLANT NOT A SPECIAL CROP, BUT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR INCOME LOSS AND VALUATION OF LAND ON WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED