Baldwin-Hall Co. v. State, 16 N.Y.2d 1005 (1965)
Damages resulting from a change in street grade are not compensable when there has been no taking of any part of the subject property and no direct physical damage thereto, even if the market value of the property diminishes due to the public improvement causing the grade change.
Summary
Baldwin-Hall Co. sought compensation from the State of New York for damages to its property resulting from a change in the grade of Oswego Boulevard. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision denying compensation, holding that while the property’s market value may have decreased, the damages were not compensable because there was no physical taking of the property and no direct physical damage to it. The court reasoned that the damages were due to circuity of access, for which no recovery is allowed under existing law, particularly as the building still had access via another usable street.
Facts
Baldwin-Hall Co. owned property that fronted Oswego Boulevard in Syracuse. As part of a public improvement project, the State changed the grade of Oswego Boulevard. This change involved moving the street’s location and depressing it. Although the building no longer fronted Oswego Boulevard after the change, it still abutted another usable street on one side. The claimant argued that the change in grade diminished the market value of its property.
Procedural History
Baldwin-Hall Co. filed a claim against the State of New York in the Court of Claims, seeking compensation for damages. The Court of Claims made factual findings that there had been a change in street grade. The Appellate Division reversed the Court of Claims’ finding of damages sustained by the claimant from the change of grade, indicating that the court believed no such damage had been established. The case then went to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, denying compensation.
Issue(s)
Whether damages resulting from a change in street grade are compensable when there has been no physical taking of the property and no direct physical damage, despite a decrease in the property’s market value due to the change in grade.
Holding
No, because such damages, although resulting from a change of grade, are not compensable when there has been no taking of any part of the subject property and no direct physical damage thereto. The damage suffered was due to circuity of access, and there is no provision in law for recovery thereof.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on its prior decision in Selig v. State of New York, which held that damages resulting from a change of grade are not compensable unless there is a physical taking or direct physical damage to the property. The court distinguished the case from situations where access to a street is completely eliminated. Here, the building still abutted another usable street, meaning that the damages were attributable to the inconvenience of access, or “circuity of access,” rather than a complete deprivation of access. The court emphasized that while the market value of the claimant’s property was probably diminished, such diminution, without a physical taking or direct physical damage, does not give rise to a legal right to compensation.
Judge Bergan dissented, arguing that the statute (Second Class Cities Law, § 99) requires compensation for damage done by a change of grade of a street, and the Court of Claims had found that the street grade was changed. He argued that there was uncontradicted proof of damage to claimant attributed solely to the change in street grade. Judge Van Voorhis concurred in Judge Bergan’s dissent, arguing that vehicular access to one street upon which the claimant’s building fronted was eliminated by the change of grade.