speculative claim in New York

2023Although some cases have held that the measure of damages for a "continuing trespass" or a nuisance that causes "permanent injury" to real property is the "loss of market value, or the cost of restoration" ( Arcamone-Makinano v Britton Prop., Inc ., 156 AD3d 669 , 672 [2d Dept 2017], lv denied , 31 NY3d 907 [2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]), plaintiffs failed to submit nonspeculative evidence of permanent injury to the property causing loss of market value, but only a speculative claim of diminution in market value due to stigma ( see Behar v Friedman , 180 AD3d 671, 676 [2d Dept 2020

2023Although some cases have held that the measure of damages for a "continuing trespass" or a nuisance that causes "permanent injury" to real property is the "loss of market value, or the cost of restoration" ( Arcamone-Makinano v Britton Prop., Inc ., 156 AD3d 669 , 672 [2d Dept 2017], lv denied , 31 NY3d 907 [2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]), plaintiffs failed to submit nonspeculative evidence of permanent injury to the property causing loss of market value, but only a speculative claim of diminution in market value due to stigma ( see Behar v Friedman , 180 AD3d 671, 676 [2d Dept 2020

2009Prods, v Educational Reading Aids Corp., 34 AD2d 769 [1970]), since it failed to submit evidence showing that its defecting brokers were irreplaceable or that its losses, other than the speculative claim of lost goodwill, were not compensable by money damages (see e.g.

2009Any document that is unavailable for judicial inspection cannot constitute a duplicative equivalent of already turned over documents. 21 (See People v Joseph, 86 NY2d 565, 569 [1995]; People v Bell, 217 AD2d 585 [2d Dept 1995].) In this regard, the People’s reliance on People v Dolan ( 172 AD2d 68 [3d Dept 1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 946 [1992]), that the court can rely on the assurances of Morabito that no changes occurred from his draft complaint to the final version he signed, is of doubtful vitality given the Court of Appeals subsequent holding in People v Joseph that ££[c]ontrary to the Peop

2009Any document that is unavailable for judicial inspection cannot constitute a duplicative equivalent of already turned over documents. 21 (See People v Joseph, 86 NY2d 565, 569 [1995]; People v Bell, 217 AD2d 585 [2d Dept 1995].) In this regard, the People’s reliance on People v Dolan ( 172 AD2d 68 [3d Dept 1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 946 [1992]), that the court can rely on the assurances of Morabito that no changes occurred from his draft complaint to the final version he signed, is of doubtful vitality given the Court of Appeals subsequent holding in People v Joseph that ££[c]ontrary to the Peop

2003Auth., 243 AD2d 678 [1997]; see also Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins.

1998Contrary to -the contention of Gramer & Melbardis, the Workers’ Compensation Law did not bar an action against F&F (see, Lindner v Kew Realty Co., 113 AD2d 36 ), and therefore, the fourth affirmative defense should have been dismissed.

1998The second affirmative defense is based on the speculative claim that this Court would have granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from its order dated May 9, 1994 (see, Iannarone v Faucetta, supra), and that the Court of Appeals, in turn, would have reversed that order.

1993Accordingly, he failed to sustain his burden of proving that the lineup procedure was unduly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Flowers, 150 AD2d 721, 722 ).

1993Accordingly, he failed to sustain his burden of proving that the lineup procedure was unduly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Flowers, 150 AD2d 721, 722 ).

1993Accordingly, he failed to sustain his burden of proving that the lineup procedure was unduly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Flowers, 150 AD2d 721, 722 ).

1992In any event, even if it is assumed that the remark was overheard by one or more members of the jury, we find that the nature of the comment was so innocuous as to pose no risk of prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35 , affd 65 NY2d 837 ; People v Geddes, 134 AD2d 279 ), and any perceived error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ; People v Dewindt, 156 AD2d 706 ).

1992In any event, even if it is assumed that the remark was overheard by one or more members of the jury, we find that the nature of the comment was so innocuous as to pose no risk of prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35 , affd 65 NY2d 837 ; People v Geddes, 134 AD2d 279 ), and any perceived error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ; People v Dewindt, 156 AD2d 706 ).

1992In any event, even if it is assumed that the remark was overheard by one or more members of the jury, we find that the nature of the comment was so innocuous as to pose no risk of prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35 , affd 65 NY2d 837 ; People v Geddes, 134 AD2d 279 ), and any perceived error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ; People v Dewindt, 156 AD2d 706 ).

1992In any event, even if it is assumed that the remark was overheard by one or more members of the jury, we find that the nature of the comment was so innocuous as to pose no risk of prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35 , affd 65 NY2d 837 ; People v Geddes, 134 AD2d 279 ), and any perceived error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ; People v Dewindt, 156 AD2d 706 ).

1989In People v Bertolo (supra) and most recently in People v Robles and its companion case People v Murray ( 72 NY2d 689 ), the Court of Appeals set forth the current state of the RogersBartolomeo doctrine as delineated and refined by subsequent cases.

1979(See Buell v Van Camp, 119 NY 160 ; Ingram v Robbins, 33 NY 409 ; Matter of Huff, 136 App Div 297 .) The thrust of defendants’ speculative challenge to the Grand Jury selection process is simply that prejudice must follow automatically upon the failure to seat those grand jurors who expressed (during the voir dire) a past or contemporaneous involvement in politics.

1979(See Buell v Van Camp, 119 NY 160 ; Ingram v Robbins, 33 NY 409 ; Matter of Huff, 136 App Div 297 .) The thrust of defendants’ speculative challenge to the Grand Jury selection process is simply that prejudice must follow automatically upon the failure to seat those grand jurors who expressed (during the voir dire) a past or contemporaneous involvement in politics.

1979(See Buell v Van Camp, 119 NY 160 ; Ingram v Robbins, 33 NY 409 ; Matter of Huff, 136 App Div 297 .) The thrust of defendants’ speculative challenge to the Grand Jury selection process is simply that prejudice must follow automatically upon the failure to seat those grand jurors who expressed (during the voir dire) a past or contemporaneous involvement in politics.

1979This is a speculative doctrine which so far seems to have been applied only in educational discrimination areas (see San Antonio School Dist. v Rodriguez, supra; see, also, Regents of Univ. of Cal. v Bakke, 438 US 265, 357 , n 30 — [opn of Mr. Justice Brennan]).

1955(Matter of Racine Water Co., 1917-1), P. U. R. 277; Kennebec Water Dist. v. City of Waterville, supra.) This test also has its limitations (primarily because of the speculative factors involved) but is unquestionably relevant, particularly when attempting to measure the intangibles of a public utility. “ The value of property, generally speaking, is determined by its productiveness— the profits which its use brings to the owner. * * * The value, therefore, is not determined by the mere cost of construction, but more by what the completed structure brings in the way of earnings to its owner.” (